__________________________________________________________________
Title: The Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume 10: Mass Music-Newman
Creator(s): Herbermann, Charles George (1840-1916)
Print Basis: 1907-1913
Rights: From online edition Copyright 2003 by K. Knight, used by
permission
CCEL Subjects: All; Reference
LC Call no: BX841.C286
LC Subjects:
Christian Denominations
Roman Catholic Church
Dictionaries. Encyclopedias
__________________________________________________________________
THE CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA
AN INTERNATIONAL WORK OF REFERENCE
ON THE CONSTITUTION, DOCTRINE,
DISCIPLINE, AND HISTORY OF THE
CATHOLIC CHURCH
EDITED BY
CHARLES G. HERBERMANN, Ph.D., LL.D.
EDWARD A. PACE, Ph.D., D.D. CONDE B PALLEN, Ph.D., LL.D.
THOMAS J. SHAHAN, D.D. JOHN J. WYNNE, S.J.
ASSISTED BY NUMEROUS COLLABORATORS
IN FIFTEEN VOLUMES
VOLUME 10
Mass Music to Newman
New York: ROBERT APPLETON COMPANY
Imprimatur
JOHN M. FARLEY
ARCHBISHOP OF NEW YORK
__________________________________________________________________
Music of the Mass
Music of the Mass
Under this heading will be considered exclusively the texts of
the Mass (and not, therefore, the Asperges, Vidi aquam,
Litanies, Prophecies, etc., which in the Roman Missal are found
more or less closely associated with the Mass in certain seasons
of the Church Year), which receive a musical treatment. These
texts comprise those which are sung (that is, recited in musical
monotone with occasional cadences or inflections) by the
celebrant and the sacred ministers (who will be referred to as
priest, deacon, and sub-deacon) and which are styled "Accentus";
and those which are assigned to the choir and which are styled
"Concentus". For the sake of convenience of reference the
Concentus may be divided into the following classes:
+ first, those which are found in the section of the Roman
Missal under the heading "Ordinarium Missae" (namely, the
Kyrie, Gloria, Credo, Sanctus, Benedictus, Agnus Dei) and
which will be briefly referred to as the Ordinary;
+ second, those texts which are found under the headings
"Proprium de Tempore", "Proprium Sanctorum", "Commune
Sanctorum" (namely, Introit, Gradual, Alleluia Verse,
Sequence, Tract, Offertory, Communion) and which will be
referred to briefly as the Proper, a serviceable but ambiguous
term frequently used to describe these texts.
The "Graduale Romanum" (together with the Missal) provides
plainsong melodies for all the texts syled Accentus or
Concentus. The Accentus must be plainsong, and must be that
plainsong which is found in the present typical edition, styled
the Vatican Edition, of the "Roman Gradual". The Concentus, if
sung to plainsong melodies, must also be in the approved form
found in the Vatican Edition of the "Gradual"; but these texts
may employ "modern" (as opposed to "medieval") music, provided
the musical treatment is in every way appropriate as indicated
in the "Instruction on Sacred Music", commonly styled the "Motu
Proprio", issued by Pius X on the Feast of St. Cecilia, Patron
of Church Music (22 Nov., 1903). This "modern" or "figured"
music is customarily styled in Church decrees simply musica, and
the plain chant or plain song is styled cantus (chant). The
serviceable distinction will be employed throughout this
article: chant, chanting, chanted, will refer to plainsong
melodies; music, musical, to figured music.
I. ACCENTUS
These chants should never be accompanied by the organ or any
other instrument. The priest intones the Gloria (Gloria in
excelsis Deo) and the Credo (Credo in unum Deum). The choir must
not repeat these words of the intonation, but must begin with Et
in terra pax, etc., and Patrem omnipotentem, etc., respectively.
The priest also sings the Collects and post-Communions and the
Dominus vobiscum and Oremus preceding them. Amen is sung by the
choir at the end of these prayers, as also after the Per omnia
saecula saeculorum preceding the Preface, the Pater noster and
the Pax Domini . . . vobiscum. The choir responds with Et cum
spiritu tuo to the Dominus vobiscum preceding the prayers, the
Gospel, and the Preface. Both of these choir responses vary from
the usual monotone when occurring before the Preface; and the
Amen receives an upward inflection before the Pax Domini, etc.
Indeed, the Dominus vobiscum and its response vary in melody for
all the three forms of the Preface (the Tonus Solemnis, the
Tonus Ferialis, the Tonus Solemnior found in the "Cantus
Missalis Romani"), as do also the chants and responses of the
Sursum corda, etc., preceding the Preface. It would be highly
desirable that choirs be well practised in these special "tones"
since exact correspondence with the form used by the priest is
not only of aesthetic but of practical value; for any deviation
from one of the "tones" into another may easily lead the priest
astray and produce a lamentable confusion of forms which ought
to be kept distinct.
At the end of the priest's chant of the Pater noster the choir
responds with Sed libera nos a malo. The sub-deacon chants the
Epistle, the deacon the Gospel. The respective responses (Deo
Gratias and Laus tibi Christe) are merely to be said by the
ministers of the Mass, and are not to be sung or recited by the
choir. This is clear from the fact that the "Roman Gradual" does
not assign any notation to these responses. To the deacon's
chant of the Ite missa est (or Benedicamus Domino) the choir
responds with Deo gratias. A Decree of the Sacred Congregation
of Rites permits the organ to supply for this response wherever
this is customary, provided the response be "recited" in a clear
voice. The chant melodies for all these choir-responses are
given in the Vatican "Gradual" under the heading "Toni Communes
Missae". It is customary in many churches to harmonize the
chant-responses and even to depart in some details from the
melodies officially assigned to the chant-responses. In summing
up the legislation in this matter, the "Motu Proprio" says (No.
12):
With the exception of the melodies proper to the celebrant at the
altar and to the ministers, which must be always sung only in
Gregorian chant, and without the accompaniment of the organ, all the
rest of the liturgical chant belongs to the choir of Levites, and,
therefore, singers in church, even when they are laymen, are really
taking the place of the ecclesiastical choir. Hence the music
rendered by them must, at least for the greater part, retain the
character of choral music.
But while the choir is thus permitted to respond in music or in
harmonized chant, good taste might suggest the desirability of
responding in unharmonized chant according to the exact melodies
provided in the "Toni Communes Missae".
Inasmuch as the Vatican "Gradual" is meant merely for the use of
the choir, the complete Accentus of the celebrant and ministers
will not be found there. The Missal contains these chants in
full (except, of course, the chants for the prayers, prophecies,
etc., which are to be recited or sung according to certain
general forms which are indicated in the "Toni Com. Mis.")
However, a number of changes made in the Missal melodies by
order of the Vatican Commission on Chant were comprised in a
separate publication entitled "Cantus Missalis Romani" (Rome,
Vatican Press, 1907), which was edited in various styles by
competent publishers of liturgical books. After that no
publisher was permitted to print or publish an edition of the
Missal Containing the melodies in use prior to that, but were to
insert the new melodies according to the scheme found in the
"Cantus Missalis Romani". Some of the newer forms were to appear
in the places occupied, in the typical edition of the Missal
(1900), by the forms previously used, while some were to be
placed in an Appendix.
The Decree of 8 June, 1907, contains the following clauses:
+ Dating from this day, the proofs containing the new typical
chant of the Missal are placed by the Holy See without special
conditions, at the disposal of the publishers, who can no
longer print or publish the chant of Missals in use at
present.
+ The new typical chant must be inserted exactly in the same
place as the old.
+ It may, however, be published separately or it may be placed
at the end of the older Missals now in print, and in both of
these cases may bear the general title, "Cantus missalis
Romani iuxta editionem Vaticanam".
+ The Tract Sicut cervus of Holy Saturday must hereafter be
printed with the words only, without chant notation.
+ The intonations or chants ad libitum, Asperges me, Gloria in
excelsis, and the more solemn tones of the Prefaces must not
be placed in the body of the Missal, but only at the end, in
the forms of a supplement or appendix; to them (the ad libitum
intonations or chants) may be added, either in the Missals or
in separate publications of the chanted parts, the chants of
the "Toni communes", already published in the "Gradual", which
have reference to the sacred ministers.
+ No change is made in the words of the text or in the rubrics
which, therefore, must be reproduced without modification, as
in the last typical edition (1900).
In the midst of the perplexities inevitably associated with such
modifications of or additions to the former methods of rendering
the Accentus, Dom Johner, O.S.B., of the Beuron Congregation,
has come to the assistance of clerics, by collecting into one
conveniently arranged manual ("Cantus Ecclesiastici iuxta
editionem Vaticanam", Ratishon, 1909: 146 pages. 12 mo.) all of
the Accentus (including the responses found in the "Toni
Communes Missae" of the "Gradule Romanum" (1908) and in the
"Cantus Missalis Romani" (1908). These he has illustrated with
appropriate extracts from the "Rubriae Missalis Romani", and has
added comments and explanations of his brackets in order to
distinguish them from official matter (e.g. pp. 14, 15, when
discussing the festal tone of the Oratio). While such a volume
is appropriate for the study or the class-room, the intonatlons
of the priest and deacon have been issued for use in the
sanctuary, in various forms. At Tournai Belgium, is published
"Intonationes celebrantis in Missa ad exemplar editionis
Vaticanae" (containing the Asperges, Vidi aquam, Gloria and
Credo, Ite Missa est, Benedicamus Domino, for all the masses
contained in the "Kyriale") on seven cards of Bristolboard which
are enclosed in a case and also in form of a pamphlet bound in
cloth. At Duesseldorf is issued a collection of the intonations
(under the title of "Tabula Intonationum") of the Gloria (15),
Credo (4), Ite Missa est and Benedicamus (17), and Requiescant
in pace, pasted on thin but strong cardboard (cloth-covered) of
four pages. These are given here merely as illustrations of the
practical means at hand for actually inaugurating the reform of
the Accentus; other publishers of the official editions of the
chant books may be consulted for other forms for use in the
sanctuary.
Some of these forms of chant-intonations are for use ad libitum.
The various intonations of the Gloria and Credo bear a close
relation to the succeeding chant of the choir, with those of
these Missa est or Benedicamus are frequently in melody with the
chant of the Kyrie eleison. Nominally, these chants and
intonations are assigned to definite seasons of the Church Year
or to peculiar kinds of rite (solemn double, semi-double,
ferial, etc.), but in as much as permission has been given to
use the chants of the "Kyriale" indifferently for any rite or
season, the requirement to be met by the priest is the artistic
one, of singing the intonation of the Mass which the choir will
actually render in chant. Thus it will be seen that the many
intonations furnished do not represent an obligatory burden but
merely a large liberty of choice. The chant of the Ite missa est
by the deacon would seem similarly to be a matter of artistic
appropriateness rather than of liturgical law.
II. THE CONCENTUS
These texts may be sung in chant or music. If chant be used, it
must be either that contained in the "Vatican Gradual", or some
other approved form of the "traditional melodies" (see "Motu
Proprio" of 25 April, 1904, d; the Decree of the S.R.C., 11
August, 1905, VI; the decree prefixed to the "Kyriale", dated 14
August 1905, closing paragraph); if the setting be musical it
must meet all the requirements summarily indicated in the "Motu
Proprio" of 22 November, 1903 (see ECCLESIASTICAL MUSIC). Under
the heading of Concentus must be considered (a) the Ordinary,
(b) the Proper.
(a) The Ordinary
The texts are those of the Kyrie, the Gloria, the Credo, the
Sanctus, the Benedictus, the Agnus Dei. A collection of these,
or a portion of them, is styled simply a "Mass". When several
"Masses" are written by the same composer, they are
differentiated numerically (e.g. Mozart's No. 1, No. 2, No. 17)
or by dedication to some particular feast (e.g. Gounod's "Messe
de Paques") or saint (e.g. Gounod's "St. Cecilia" Mass), or
devotion (e.g. Gounod's "Messe du Sacre Coeur"), or musical
association (e.g. Gounod's "Messe des Orpheonistes", Nos. I,
II), or musical patron (e.g. Palestrina's "Missa Papae
Marcelli"), or special occasion (e.g. Cherubini's "Third Mass in
A" entitled the "Coronation Mass", as it was for the coronation
of King Charles X). The title Missa Brevis is sometimes employed
for a Mass requiring only a moderate time for its rendition
(e.g. Palestrina's "Missa Brevis"; Andrea Gabrieli's printed in
Vol. I of Proske's "Musica Divina") although the term scarcely
applies, save in another sense, to J.S. Bach's "Missa Brevis"
(in A) comprising in its forty-four closely printed pages only
the music of the Kyrie and Gloria. In some Masses the place of
the Benedictus is taken by an O Salutaris. A polyphonic Mass
composed, not upon themes taken from chant melodies (as was the
custom), was styled "sine nomine". Those founded upon chant
subjects were thus styled (e.g. Palestrina's "Ecce Sacerdos
Magnus", "Virtute magna", etc.) or when founded on secular song
themes unblushingly bore the appropriate title (e.g.
Palestrina's "L'homme arme"). Masses were sometimes styled by
the name of the chant-mode in which they were composed (e.g.
"Primi Toni") or, founded on the hexachordal system, were styled
"Missa super voces musicales" (Missa Ut, Re, Mi, Fa, Sol, La);
or bore as title the number of voices employed (e.g. "Missa
Quatuor Vocum").
This is not the place to rehearse the story of the gradual
development and corruption of ecclesiastical music, of the many
attempts at reform, and of the latest pronouncements of the Holy
See which oblige consciences with all the force of liturgical
law. An excellent summary of this history is given by Dr.
Rockstro in Grove's "Dictionary of music and musians" (s. v.
Mass), which may be supplemented by the recent abundant
literature of the reform-movement in Church Music. It is of more
immediate and practical importance to indicate the various
catalogues or lists of music compiled by those who are seeking
to reform the music of the Mass. It is interesting to reflect
that in his earlier legislation on this subject, Leo XIII
recommended a diocesan commission to draw up a diocesan Index of
Repertoires, or at least to sanction the performances of pieces
therein indicated, whether published or unpublished. In the
later Regolamento of 6 July, 1894, the S. C. of Rites does not
refer any such index but merely requires bishops to exercise
appropriate supervision over the pastors so that appropriate
music may not be heard in their churches. The present pope has
nowhere indicated the necessity, or even the advisability, of
compiling such an index or catalogue, but has required the
appointment, in every diocese, of a competent commission which
shall supervise musical matters and see that the legislation of
the "Motu Proprio" be properly carried out.
Nevertheless, it was the stimulus of the Regolamento of 1894
which led to the compilation, in the Diocese of Cincinnati, of a
highly informing "First Official Catalogue" of that commission,
which was made obligatory by Archbishop Elder in a letter dated
26 July, 1899, and which was to go into operation on the First
Sunday of Advent (3 Dec.) of that year. The commission requested
pastors to submit the music used for inspection by the
commission. The catalogue does not content itself with approving
certain of these compositions but takes the trouble both to mark
"rejected" after the various titles and to give, usually, the
reason for the rejection. In the following year it issued its
"Second Official Catalogue". Both catalogues are important as
illustrating the exact musical conditions of one great diocese,
and show forth more searchingly than many arguments the need of
reform. These catalogues have been rendered obsolete by the more
stringent recent legislation.
But, although that legislation has not prescribed the
compilation of lists of approved music, many such catalogues or
lists have been compiled. They all pay great attention to the
music of the Mass, and should prove of the greatest assistance
to choir-masters. Correct and appropriate music for Mass, for
all degrees of musical ability or choral attainment and of the
greatest abundance and freshness and individuality of style, can
now be easily obtained.
In selecting a Mass it is always advisable to read the text in
order to see that it is both complete and liturgically correct;
that there should be no alteration or inversion of the words, no
undue repetition, no breaking of syllables. In addition, the
"Motu Proprio" specifies [No 11 (a)]: The Kyrie, Gloria, Credo,
etc., of the Mass must preserve the unity of composition proper
to their text. It is not lawful, therefore, to compose them in
separate pieces, in such a way that each of those pieces may
form a complete composition in itself, and be capable of being
detached from the rest and substituted by another". It further
remarks (No. 22): "It is not lawful to keep the priest at the
altar waiting on amount of the chant or the music for a length
of time not allowed by the liturgy. According to the
ecclesiastical prescriptions the Sanctus of the Mass should be
the Elevation and therefore the priest must have regard to the
singers. The Gloria and Credo ought, according to the Gregorian
tradition, to be relatively short."
Something remains to be said of the chant of the Ordinary which
is found in the separate small volume entitled "Kyriale". It is
issued by the various competent publishers in all styles of
printing, paper, binding in large and small forms; in medieval
and in modern notation; with and without certain "rhythmical
signs". The eighteen "Masses" it contains are nominally assigned
to various qualities of rite; but, in accordance with ancient
tradition and with the unanimous agreement of the pontifical
Commission on the Chant, liberty has been granted to select any
"Mass" for any quality of rite (see the note "Quoslibet cantus"
etc., p. 64 of the Vatican Edition of the "Kyriale": "Any chant
assigned in this ordinarium to one mass may be used in any
other; in the same way, according to the quality of the Mass or
the degree of solemnity, any one of those which follow [that is,
in the section styled "Cantus ad libitum"] may be taken"). The
decrees relating to the publishing of editions based on this
typical edition, and to its promulgation, are given in Latin and
English translation in "Church Music", March, 1906, pp. 250-256.
It is noteworthy that this typical edition gives no direction
about singing the Benedictus after the Elevation, but prints
both chants in such juxtapostion as to suggest that the
Benedictus might be sung before the Elevation. In the "Revue du
Chant Gregorien" (Aug.-Oct., 1905), its editor, Canon
Grospellier, who was one of the Consultors of the Gregorian
Commission, said that he was inclined to think that, where time
allows, the Benedictus might be sung immediately at its meeting
at Appuldurcombe, in 1904, unanimously accepted a resolution to
this effect. The preface to the Vatican "Gradual", while giving
minute directions for the ceremonial rendering of the chants
merely says: "When the preface is finished, the choir goes on
with the Sanctus, etc." At the elevation of the Blessed
Sacrament, the choir is silent like every one else.
Nevertheless, in as much as the "Gradual" does not declare that
the Benedictus is to be chanted after the Elevation, the "etc."
is understood to imply that it should be sung immediately after
the Sanctus. The "Caeremoniale Episcoporum" however, directs
that it be sung (after elevation of the chalice". The apprarent
conflict of authorities may be harmonized by supposing that the
"Caeremoniale" legislated for the case of musically developed
(e.g. polyphonic) settings of the Sanctus and the Benedictus,
whose length would necessitate their separation from each other,
while the "Gradual" contemplates, of course, the much briefer
settings of the plainsong (see "Church Music", Jan., l909, p.
87).
(b) The Proper
While the texts of the Ordinary do not (with the exception of
the Agnus Dei, which is altered in Requiem Mass) change, those
which commonly, but somewhat ambiguously, are called the
"Proper", change in accordance with the character of the feast
or Sunday or ferial day. These texts are the Introit, Gradual,
Alleluia-Verse, Sequence, Tract, Offertory, Communion. Not all
of these will be found in any one Mass. Thus, e.g. Holy Saturday
has no Introit, Gradual, Offertory, Communion; from Low Sunday
to Trinity Sunday, the Gradual is replaced by all
Alleluia-Verse; from Septuagesima to Easter, as well as on
certain penitential days, the Allehlia-Verse which ordinarily
follows the Gradual, is replaced by a Tract; in only a few
Masses is a Sequence used; there is no Introit on Whitsun Eve,
while the customary Gloria Patri after the Introit is omitted
during Passion-tide. In Requiem Masses the Gloria Patri is
omitted after the Introit, a Tract and a Sequence follow the
Gradual. Nor do the texts differ for every feast, as is
illustrated by the division of the Sanctorale into the "Proprium
de Sanctis" and the "Commune Sanctorum", this latter division
grouping the feasts into classes, such as the feasts of
confessors-Bishops, confessors-not-bishops, martyrs, virgins,
etc., in which the texts of the "Proper" serve for many feasts
of the "Propers" in many churches. They are, however, an
integral part of the duty of the choir, and must be sung, or at
least "recited", in a clear and intelligible voice, the organ
meanwhile sustaining appropriate chords.
In a Rescript dated 8 August, 1906, the S.R.C. answering
questions proposed by the Abbot of Santa Maria Maggiore in
Naples, declares that in solemn Mass, when the organ is used,
the Gradual, Offertory Comunion, when not sung, must be recited
in a high and intelligible voice, and that the Deo Gratias
following the Ite missa est should receive the same treatment.
Previous answers of the S.R.C. were of similar tenor. Thus
(Coimbra 14 April, 1753): in a "Community Mass" it is always
necessary to sing the Gloria, Credo, all of the Gradual, the
Preface, Pater noster, so, too, a question from Chioggia in
1875, as to whether the custom introduced into that diocese of
omitting the chant of the Gradual, the Tract, the Sequence, the
Offertory, the Benedictus the Communion was contrary to the
rubrics and decisions of the S.R.C., was answered affirmatively,
and the questioner was remit ted to the Coimbra decision. A
specific difficulty was offered for solution by a bishop who
declared that in his diocese where a single chanter was used,
and where the people had to hurry to their daily work, the
custom had obtained (throughout almost the whole diocese) of
omitting, in stipendiary Masses, the Gloria, Gradual, Tract,
Sequenee, Credo. He was answered (29 Dec., 1884) that the custom
was an abuse that must be absolutely eliminated. The spirit of
the Church legislation is summed up in the "Motu Proprio" (22
Nov., 1903, No. 8):
As the texts that may be rendered in music, and the order in which
they are to be rendered, are determined for every function, it is
not lawful to confuse this order or to change the prescribed texts
for others collected at will, or to omit them entirely or even in
part, except when the rubrics allow that some versicles are simply
recited in choir. It is permissible, however, according to the
custom of the Roman Church, to sing a motet to the Blessed Sacrament
after the Benedictus in a solemn Mass. It is also permitted after
the Offertory prescribed for the Mass has been sung, to execute
during the time that remains a brief motet to words approved by the
Church.
A practical difficulty is encountered in the fact that many
choirs have met the limit of their capacity in preparing the
chant or music of the Ordinary, whose texts are fixed and
repeated frequently. How shall such choirs prepare for a
constantly changing series of Proper texts whether in chant or
in music? Several practical solutions of the difficulty have
been offered. There is, first of all, the easy device of
recitation. Then there is the solution offered in the excellent
and laborious work of Dr. Edmund Tozer, who prepared simple
psalm-like settings which could be easily mastered by a fairly
equipped choir. The work "The Proper of the Mass for Sundays and
Holidays" (New York, 1907-1908, Vol. II, No. 2926) is reviewed
in "Church Music" Jan., 1907, 127-128; Mar., 1908, 171-178; see
also June, 1906, "One Outcome of the Discussion", 409-415,
including a specimen-four-page of Dr. Tozer's method of
treatment of the Proper text. A third volume which will comprise
various local texts is in course of preparation. Another method
is that undertaken by Marcello Capra, of Turin, Italy, which
provides musical settings for the Proper of the principal feasts
for one or two voices, and with easy organ accompaniment. Still
another method is that of Giulio Bas who has compiled a volume,
"Gradualis Versus Alleluia et Tractus" (Dusseldorf, 1910), of
plainsong settings from the Ambrosian, Aquileian, Greek,
Mozarabic chant, for Sundays and Double Feasts in order to
facilitate the rendering of the more difficult portions of the
Proper.
However rendered, these chants of the Proper must not be omitted
or curtailed. But apart from this liturgical necessity they
challlenge admiration because of their devotional, poetic,
aesthetic perfection: "If we pass in review before our musical
eye the wonderful thoughts expressed in the Introits, Graduals,
Alleluia, Verses, Tracts, Offertories, and Communions of the
whole ecclesiastical year, from the first Sunday in Advent to
the last Sunday after Pentecost, as well as those of the
numerous Masses of the saints, apostles, martyrs, confessors,
virgins, we must feel that in the Roman Church we have an
anthology worthy of our highest admiration" (Rev. H. Bewerunge,
("Address at London Eucharistic Congress"). It should be a part
of a choirmaster's business to translate and explain these texts
to his choir, that they may be recited or sung with the
understanding as well as with the voice. To this end the "Missal
for the Laity", with its Latin and parallel English version,
might be used. The spirit of the liturgy might also be largely
acquired from the volumes of Dom Gueranger's "Liturgical Year".
As this is, however, such an extensive work, the much briefer
and more direct treatments of the texts of the Proper with
comment on the spirit, which ran serially through the issues of
"Church Music", would prove highly serviceable.
With respect to the plainsong setting, two typical chants should
be studied carefully (see Dom Eudine's articles in "Church
Music", March, 1906, 222-235, on "the Gradual for Easter", "the
Haec dies", and June, l906, 360- 373, on "the Introit
Gaudeamus", which give the plainsong notation with transcription
into modern notation, rhythmical and dynamical analyses, etc.).
Such a study will encourage the present day musician to acquire
a greater familiarity with the plainsong of the Proper which
present-day choirs should have: "First, there is the Gregorian
Chant. The more one studies these ancient melodies the more one
is impressed by their variety and rare beauty. Take the
distinctiveness of their forms, the characteristic style which
distinguishes an Introit from a Gradual, an Offertory from a
Communion. Then within each class what variety of expression,
what amazing interpretation of the words, and above all what
sublime beauty and mystical spirit of prayer! Certainly, anyone
who has tasted the sweetness of these chants must envy the few
privileged places where there is high Mass every day and thus a
chance is given of hearing all of these divine strains at least
once a year" (Bewerunge).
There is a large body of settings of the classical polyphonic
schools, and of modern polyphony, as also much illustration of
modern homophonic music, of the proper texts. Care should be
taken to see that the texts thus treated are verbally correct.
For in the return to the traditional melodies of the chants, the
commission found it necessary to restore, in very many
instances, omitted portions of text, and in various ways to
restore to use the more ancient forms of the texts. In the
"Proprium de Tempore", for instance, there are about 200 textual
changes. A summary view of their general character is given in
"Church Music" (July, 1908), pp. 232-235. Since these altered
texts differ from those still retained in the Missal, choirs
which "recite" the texts will do so from the Vatican "Gradual",
and not from the Missal. When the "Gradual" was first issued, it
was noticed that the Propers of some American feasts (as also,
of course, the Propers of many foreign dioceses as well) were
omitted (see "Church Music," March, 1908, 138-134). Some
publishers have added these Propers for America, in an appendix
bound in with the volume. Doubtless a similar process will be
adopted in the case of many foreign dioceses.
Many questions which touch the musical part of the services at
Mass belong to the general subject of the reform movement in
Church Music, and will be more appropriately treated under the
heading MUSIC, ECCLESIASTICAL. Such are, e.g. the long debated
matter of the use of women's voices in our gallery choirs; the
capabilities of chorister boys for the proper rendition of the
Ordinary and the Proper, the use of chants with rhythmical signs
added; the character of the rhythm to be used ("oratorical" or
"measured") the character of accompaniment best suited to the
chant; the use of musical instruments in chanted or musical
Masses; the status of women as organists; the adoption of a
sanctuary choir, whether in place of, or in conjunction with,
the gallery choir. Historically the reform movement in the chant
was signalized by the issuance, first of all, of the "Kyriale",
which contains the Ordinary chants and then of the "Graduale",
which comprises all the chants for Mass, but this matter also
belongs to a more general treatment.
H.T. HENRY
Nuptial Mass
Nuptial Mass
"Missa pro sponso et sponsa", the last among the votive Masses
in the Missal. It is composed of lessons and chants suitable to
the Sacrament of Matrimony, contains prayers for persons just
married and is interwoven with part of the marriage rite, of
which in the complete form it is an element. As the Mass was
looked upon as the natural accompaniment of any solemn function
(ordination, consecration of churches, etc.), it was naturally
celebrated as part of the marriage service. Tertullian (d. about
220; ad Uxor., II, 9) mentions the oblation that confirms
marriage (matrimonium quod ecclesia conciliat et confirmat
oblatio). All the Roman Sacramentaries contain the nuptial Mass
(The Leonine, ed. Feltoc, 140-142; The Gelasian, ed. Wilson,
265-267; The Gregorian, P. L., LXXVIII, 261-264), with our
present prayers and others (a special Hanc Igitur and Preface).
The Gelasian Sacramentary (loc. cit.) contains, moreover, the
blessing now said after the Ite missa est, then said after the
Communion, a Gallican addition (Duchesne, "Origines du Culte",
Paris, ed. 2, 1898 n. 417). Pope Nicholas I (858-867) in his
instruction for the Bulgars, in 866, describes the whole rite of
marriage, including the crowning of the man and wife that is
still the prominent feature of the rite in the Byzantine Church;
this rite contains a Mass at which the married persons make the
offertory and receive communion (Rasp. ad cons, Bulgarorum, iii,
quoted by Duchesne op. cit., 413- 414).
The present rules for a nuptial Mass are; first, that it may not
be celebrated in the closed time for marriages, that is from
Advent Sunday till after the octave of the Epiphany and from Ash
Wednesday till after Low Sunday. During these times no reference
to a marriage may be made in Mass; if people wish to be married
then they must be content with the little service in the Ritual,
without music or other solemnities. This is what is meant by the
rubric: " claudun tur nuptiarum solemnia "; it is spoken of
usually as the closed season. During the rest of the year the
nuptial Mass may be said at a wedding any day except Sundays and
feasts of obligation, doubles of the first and second class and
such privileged ferias and octaves as exclude a double. It may
not displace the Rogation Mass at which the procession is made,
nor may it displace at least one Requiem on All Souls day. On
these occasions its place is taken by the Mass of the day to
which commemorations of the nuptial Mass are added in the last
place and at which the blessings are inserted in their place.
The nuptial blessing is considered as part of the nuptial Mass.
It may never be given except during this Mass or during a Mass
that replaces it (and commemorates it) when it cannot be said,
as above. The nuptial Mass and blessing may be celebrated after
the closed time for people married during it. So nuptial Mass
and blessing always go together; either involves the other. One
Mass and blessing may be held for several pairs of married
people, who must all be present. The forms, however, remain in
the singular as they are in the Missal. The Mass and blessing
may not be held if the woman has already received this blessing
in a former marriage. This rule only affects the woman, for whom
the blessing is more specially intended (see the prayer Deus qui
potestate). It must be understood exactly as stated. A former
marriage without this blessing, or the fact that children had
been born before the marriage, is no hindrance. Nor may the
nuptial Mass and blessing be held in cases of mixed marriages
(mixta religio) inspite of any dispensation. According to the
Con stitution "Etsi sanctissimus Dominus" of Pius IX (15
November, 1858), mixed marriages must be celebrated outside the
church (in England and America this is understood as meaning
outside the sanctuary and choir), without the blessing of the
ring or of the spouses without any ecclesiastical rite or
vestment, without proclamation of banns.
The rite of the nuptial Mass and blessing is this: The Mass has
neither Gloria nor Creed. It counts as a votive Mass not for a
grave matter; therefore it has three collects, its own, the
commemoration of the day, and the third which is the one chosen
for semi-doubles at that time of the year unless there be two
commemorations. At the end Benedicamus Domino and the Gospel of
St. John are said. The colour is white. The bridegroom and bride
assist near the altar (just outside the sanctuary), the man on
the right. After the Pater noster the celebrant genuflects and
goes to epistle side. Meanwhile the bridegroom and bride come up
and kneel before him. Turning to them he says the two prayers
Propitiare Domine and Deus qui potestate (as in the Missal) with
folded hands. He then goes back to the middle and continues the
Mass. They go back to their places. He gives them Communion at
the usual time. This implies that they are fasting and explains
the misused name "wedding breakfast" afterwards. But the
Communion is strict law (S.R.C., no 5582, 21 March, 1874).
Immediately after the Benedicamus Domino and its answer the
celebrant again goes to the Epistle side and the bridegroom and
kneel before him as before. The celebrant turning to them says
the prayer Deus Abraham (without Oremus). He is then told to
warn them "with grave words to be faithful to one another". The
rest of the advice suggested in the rubric of the Missal is now
generally left out. He sprinkles them with holy water; they
retire, he goes back to the middle of the altar, says Placeat
tibi, gives the blessing and finishes Mass as usual.
In the cases in which the "Missa pro sponso et sponsa" may not
be said but may be commemorated, the special prayers and
blessing are inserted in the Mass in the same way. But the
colour must be that of the day. During the closed time it is, of
course, quite possible for the married people to have a Mass
said for their intention, at which they receive Holy Communion.
The nuptial Blessing in this Mass is quite different thing from
the actual celebration of the marriage which must always precede
it. The blessing is given to people already married, as the
prayers imply. It need not be given (nor the Mass said) by the
parish priest, who assisted at the marriage. But both these
functions (assitance and blessing) are rights of the parish
priests, which no one else may undertake without delegation from
him. Generally they are so combined that the marrige takes place
immediately before the Mass; in this case the priest at the
marriage in Mass vestments, but without the maniple. In England
and other countries where a civil declaration is required by
law, this is usually made in the sacristy between the marriage
and the Mass. Canon Law in England orders that marriages be made
only in churches that have a district with the cure of souls
(Conc. prov. Westm. I, decr. XXII, 4). This implies as a general
rule, but does not command absolutely, that the nuptial Mass
also be celebrated in such a church.
ADRIAN FORTESCUE
Sacrifice of the Mass
Sacrifice of the Mass
The word Mass (missa) first established itself as the general
designation for the Eucharistic Sacrifice in the West after the
time of Pope Gregory the Great (d. 604), the early Church having
used the expression the "breaking of bread" (fractio panis) or
"liturgy" (Acts 13:2, leitourgountes); the Greek Church has
employed the latter name for almost sixteen centuries. There
were current in the early days of Christianity other terms;
+ "The Lord's Supper" (coena dominica),
+ the "Sacrifice" (prosphora, oblatio),
+ "the gathering together" (synaxis, congregatio),
+ "the Mysteries", and
+ (since Augustine), "the Sacrament of the Altar".
With the name "Love Feast" (agape) the idea of the sacrifice of
the Mass was not necessarily connected. Etymologically, the word
missa is neither (as Baronius states) from a Hebrew word, nor
from the Greek mysis, but is simply derived from missio, just as
oblata is derived from oblatio, collecta from collectio, and
ulta from ultio. The reference was however not to a Divine
"mission", but simply to a "dismissal" (dimissio) as was also
customary in the Greek rite (cf. "Canon. Apost.", VIII, xv:
apolyesthe en eirene), and as is still echoed in the phrase Ite
missa est. This solemn form of leave-taking was not introduced
by the Church as something new, but was adopted from the
ordinary language of the day, as is shown by Bishop Avitus of
Vienne as late as A.D. 500 (Ep. 1 in P.L., LIX, 199):
In churches and in the emperor's or the prefect's courts, Missa est
is said when the people are released from attendance.
In the sense of "dismissal", or rather "close of prayer", missa
is used in the celebrated "Peregrinatio Silvae" at least seventy
times (Corpus scriptor. eccles. latinor., XXXVIII, 366 sq.) and
Rule of St. Benedict places after Hours, Vespers, Compline, the
regular formula: Et missae fiant (prayers are ended). Popular
speech gradually applied the ritual of dismissal, as it was
expressed in both the Mass of the Catechumens and the Mass of
the Faithful, by synecdoche to the entire Eucharistic Sacrifice,
the whole being named after the part. The first certain trace of
such an application is found in Ambrose (Ep. xx, 4, in P. L.
XVI, 995). We will use the word in this sense in our
consideration of the Mass in its existence, essence, and
causality.
I. THE EXISTENCE OF THE MASS
Before dealing with the proofs of revelation afforded by the
Bible and tradition, certain preliminary points must first be
decided. Of these the most important is that the Church intends
the Mass to be regarded as a "true and proper sacrifice", and
will not tolerate the idea that the sacrifice is identical with
Holy Communion. That is the sense of a clause from the Council
of Trent (Sess. XXII, can. 1): "If any one saith that in the
Mass a true and proper sacrifice is not offered to God; or, that
to be offered is nothing else but that Christ is given us to
eat; let him be anathema" (Denzinger, "Enchir.", 10th ed. 1908,
n. 948). When Leo XIII in the dogmatic Bull "Apostolicae Curae"
of 13 Sept., 1896, based the invalidity of the Anglican form of
consecration on the fact among others, that in the consecrating
formula of Edward VI (that is, since 1549) there is nowhere an
unambiguous declaration regarding the Sacrifice of the Mass, the
Anglican archbishops answered with some irritation: "First, we
offer the Sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving; next, we plead
and represent before the Father the Sacrifice of the Cross . . .
and, lastly, we offer the Sacrifice of ourselves to the Creator
of all things, which we have already signified by the oblation
of His creatures. This whole action, in which the people has
necessarily to take part with the priest, we are accustomed to
call the communion the Eucharistic Sacrifice". In regard to this
last contention, Bishop Hedley of Newport declared his belief
that not one Anglican in a thousand is accustomed, to call the
communion the "Eucharistic Sacrifice." But even if they were all
so accustomed, they would have to interpret the terms in the
sense of the thirty-nine Articles, which deny both the Real
Presence and the sacrifical power of the priest, and thus admit
a sacrifice in an unreal or figurative sense only. Leo XIII, on
the other hand, in union with the whole Christian past, had in
mind in the above-mentioned Bull nothing else than the
Eucharistic "Sacrifice of the true Body and Blood of Christ" on
the altar. This Sacrifice is certainly not identical with the
Anglican form of celebration.
The simple fact that numerous heretics, such as Wyclif and
Luther, repudiated the Mass as "idolatry", while retaining the
Sacrament of the true Body and Blood of Christ, proves that the
Sacrament of the Eucharist is something essentially different
from the Sacrifice of the Mass. In truth, the Eucharist performs
at once two functions: that of a sacrament and that of a
sacrifice. Though the inseparableness of the two is most clearly
seen in the fact that the consecrating sacrificial powers of the
priest coincide, and consequently that the sacrament is produced
only in and through the Mass, the real difference between them
is shown in that the sacrament is intended privately for the
sanctification of the soul, whereas the sacrifice serves
primarily to glorify God by adoration, thanksgiving, prayer, and
expiation. The recipient of the one is God, who receives the
sacrifice of His only-begotten Son; of the other, man, who
receives the sacrament for his own good. Furthermore, the
unbloody Sacrifice of the Eucharistic Christ is in its nature a
transient action, while the Sacrament of the Altar continues as
something permanent after the sacrifice, and can even be
preserved in monstrance and ciborium. Finally, this difference
also deserves mention: communion under one form only is the
reception of the whole sacrament, whereas, without the use of
the two forms of bread and wine (the symbolic separation of the
Body and Blood), the mystical slaying of the victim, and
therefore the Sacrifice of the Mass, does not take place.
The definition of the Council of Trent supposes as self-evident
the proposition that, along with the "true and real Sacrifice of
the Mass", there can be and are in Christendom figurative and
unreal sacrifices of various kinds, such as prayers of praise
and thanksgiving, alms, mortification, obedience, and works of
penance. Such offerings are often referred to in Holy Scripture,
e.g. in Ecclus., xxxv, 4: "All he that doth mercy offereth
sacrifice"; and in Ps. cxl, 2: "Let my prayer be directed as
incense in thy sight, the lifting up of my hands as evening
sacrifice." These figurative offerings, however, necessarily
presuppose the real and true offering, just as a picture
presupposes its subject and a portrait its original. The
Biblical metaphors -- a "sacrifice of jubilation" (Ps. xxvi, 6),
the "calves of our lips (Osee, xiv, 3), the "sacrifice of
praise" (Heb., xiii, 15) -- expressions which apply sacrificial
terms to sacrifice (hostia, thysia). That there was such a
sacrifice, the whole sacrificial system of the Old Law bears
witness. It is true that we may and must recognize with St.
Thomas (II-II:85:3), as the principale sacrificium the
sacrificial intent which, embodied in the spirit of prayer,
inspires and animates the external offerings as the body
animates the soul, and without which even the most perfect
offering has neither worth nor effect before God. Hence, the
holy psalmist says: "For if thou hadst desired sacrifice, I
would indeed have given it: with burnt-offerings thou wilt not
be delighted. A sacrifice to God is an afflicted spirit" (Ps. I,
18 sq.). This indispensable requirement of an internal
sacrifice, however, by no means makes the external sacrifice
superfluous in Christianity; indeed, without a perpetual
oblation deriving its value from the sacrifice once offered on
the Cross, Christianity, the perfect religion, would be inferior
not only to the Old Testament, but even to the poorest form of
natural religion. Since sacrifice is thus essential to religion,
it is all the more necessary for Christianity, which cannot
otherwise fulfil its duty of showing outward honour to God in
the most perfect way. Thus, the Church, as the mystical Christ,
desires and must have her own permanent sacrifice, which surely
cannot be either an independent addition to that of Golgotha or
its intrinsic complement; it can only be the one self-same
sacrifice of the Cross, whose fruits, by an unbloody offering,
are daily made available for believers and unbelievers and
sacrificially applied to them.
If the Mass is to be a true sacrifice in the literal sense, it
must realize the philosophical conception of sacrifice. Thus the
last preliminary question arises: What is a sacrifice in the
proper sense of the term? Without attempting to state and
establish a comprehensive theory of sacrifice, it will suffice
to show that, according to the comparative history of religions,
four things are necessary to a sacrifice:
+ a sacrificial gift (res oblata),
+ a sacrificing minister (minister legitimus),
+ a sacrificial action (actio sacrificica), and
+ a sacrificial end or object (finis sacrificii).
In contrast with sacrifices in the figurative or less proper
sense, the sacrificial gift must exist in physical substance,
and must be really or virtually destroyed (animals slain,
libations poured out, other things rendered unfit for ordinary
uses), or at least really transformed, at a fixed place of
sacrifice (ara, altare), and offered up to God. As regards the
person offering, it is not permitted that any and every
individual should offer sacrifice on his own account. In the
revealed religion, as in nearly all heathen religions, only a
qualified person (usually called priest, sacerdos, lereus), who
has been given the power by commission or vocation, may offer up
sacrifice in the name of the community. After Moses, the priests
authorized by law in the Old Testament belonged to the tribe of
Levi, and more especially to the house of Aaron (Heb., v, 4).
But, since Christ Himself received and exercised His high
priesthood, not by the arrogation of authority but in virtue of
a Divine call, there is still greater need that priests who
represent Him should receive power and authority through the
Sacrament of Holy Orders to offer up the sublime Sacrifice of
the New Law. Sacrifice reaches its outward culmination in the
sacrificial act, in which we have to distinguish between the
proximate matter and the real form. The form lies, not in the
real transformation or complete destruction of the sacrificial
gift, but rather in its sacrificial oblation, in whatever way it
may be transformed. Even where a real destruction took place, as
in the sacrificial slayings of the Old Testament, the act of
destroying was performed by the servants of the Temple, whereas
the proper oblation, consisting in the "spilling of blood"
(aspersio sanguinis), was the exclusive function of the priests.
Thus the real form of the Sacrifice of the Cross consisted
neither in the killing of Christ by the Roman soldiers nor in an
imaginary self-destruction on the part of Jesus, but in His
voluntary surrender of His blood shed by another's hand, and in
His offering of His life for the sins of the world.
Consequently, the destruction or transformation constitutes at
most the proximate matter; the sacrificial oblation, on the
other hand, is the physical form of the sacrifice. Finally, the
object of the sacrifice, as significant of its meaning, lifts
the external offering beyond any mere mechanical action into the
sphere of the spiritual and Divine. The object is the soul of
the sacrifice, and, in a certain sense, its "metaphysicial
form". In all religions we find, as the essential idea of
sacrifice, a complete surrender to God for the purpose of union
with Him; and to this idea there is added, on the part of those
who are in sin, the desire for pardon and reconcillation. Hence
at once arises the distinction between sacrifices of praise and
expiation (sacrificium latreuticum et propitiatorium), and
sacrifices of thanksgiving and petition (sacrificium
eucharisticum et impetratorium); hence also the obvious
inference that under pain of idolatry, sacrifice is to be
offered to God alone as the begining and end of all things.
Rightly does St. Augustine remark (De civit. Dei, X, iv): "Who
ever thought of offering sacrifice except to one whom he either
knew, or thought, or imagined to be God?".
If then we combine the four constituent ideas in a definition,
we may say: "Sacrifice is the external oblation to God by an
authorized minister of a sense-perceptible object, either
through its destruction or at least through its real
transformation, in acknowledgement of God's supreme dominion and
of the appeasing of His wrath." We shall demonstrate the
applicability of this definition to the Mass in the section
devoted to the nature of the sacrifice, after settling the
question of its existence.
A. Scriptural Proof
It is a notable fact that the Divine institution of the Mass can
be established, one might almost say, with greater certainty by
means of the Old Testament than by means of the New.
1. Old Testament
The Old Testament prophecies are recorded partly in types,
partly in words. Following the precedent of many Fathers of the
Church (see Bellarmine, "De Euchar.", v, 6), the Council of
Trent especially (Sess. XXII, cap. i) laid stress on the
prophetical relation that undoubtedly exists between the
offering of bread and wine by Melchisedech and the Last Supper
of Jesus. The occurrence was briefly as follows: After Abraham
(then still called "Abram") with his armed men had rescued his
nephew Lot from the four hostile kings who had fallen on him and
robbed him, Melchisedech, King of Salem (Jerusalem), "bringing
forth [ proferens] bread and wine for he was a priest of the
Most High God, blessed him [Abraham] and said: Blessed be Abram
by the Most High God . . . And he [Abraham] gave him the tithes
of all" (Gen., xiv, 18-20). Catholic theologians (with very few
exceptions) have from the beginning rightly emphasized the
circumstance that Melchisedech brought out bread and wine, not
merely to provide refreshment for Abram's followers wearied
after the battle, for they were well supplied with provisions
out of the booty they had taken (Gen., xiv, 11, 16), but to
present bread and wine as food-offerings to Almighty God. Not as
a host, but as "priest of the Most High God", he brought forth
bread and wine, blessed Abraham, and received the tithes from
him. In fact, the very reason for his "bringing forth bread and
wine" is expressly stated to have been his priesthood: "for he
was a priest". Hence, proferre must necessarily become offerre,
even if it were true that the Hiphil word is not an hieratic
sacrificial term; but even this is not quite certain (cf. Judges
vi, 18 sq.). Accordingly, Melchisedech made a real food-offering
of bread and wine.
Now it is the express teaching of Scripture that Christ is "a
priest for ever according to the order [ kata ten taxin] of
Melchisedech" (Ps. cix, 4; Heb., v, 5 sq; vii, 1 sqq). Christ,
however, in no way resembled his priestly prototype in His
bloody sacrifice on the Cross, but only and solely at His Last
Supper. On that occasion He likewise made an unbloody
food-offering, only that, as Antitype, He accomplished something
more than a mere oblation of bread and wine, namely the
sacrifice of His Body and Blood under the mere forms of bread
and wine. Otherwise, the shadows cast before by the "good things
to come" would have been more perfect than the things
themselves, and the antitype at any rate no richer in reality
than the type. Since the Mass is nothing else than a continual
repetition, commanded by Christ Himself, of the Sacrifice
accomplished at the Last Supper, it follows that the Sacrifice
of the Mass partakes of the New testament fulfilment of the
prophecy of Melchisedech. (Concerning the Paschal Lamb as the
second type of the Mass, see Bellarmine, "De Euchar.", V, vii;
cf. also von Cichowski, "Das altestamentl. Pascha in seinem
Verhaltnis zum Opfer Christi", Munich, 1849.)
Passing over the more or less distinct references to the Mass in
other prophets (Ps. xxi, 27 sqq., Is., lxvi, 18 sqq.), the best
and clearest prediction concerning the Mass is undoubtedly that
of Malachias, who makes a threatening announcement to the Levite
priests in the name of God: "I have no pleasure in you, saith
the Lord of hosts: and I will not receive a gift of your hand.
For from the rising of the sun even to the down, my name is
great among the Gentiles [heathens, non-Jews], and in every
place there is sacrifice, and there is offered to my name a
clean oblation: for my name is great among Gentiles, saith the
Lord of hosts" (Mal., i, 10-11). According to the unanimous
interpretation of the Fathers of the Church (see Petavius, "De
incarn.", xii, 12), the prophet here foretells the everlasting
Sacrifice of the New Dispensation. For he declares that these
two things will certainly come to pass:
+ The abolition of all Levitical sacrifices, and
+ the institution of an entirely new sacrifice.
As God's determination to do away with the sacrifices of the
Levites is adhered to consistently throughout the denunciation,
the essential thing is to specify correctly the sort of
sacrifice that is promised in their stead. In regard to this,
the following propositions have to be established:
+ that the new sacrifice is to come about in the days of the
Messiah;
+ that it is to be a true and real sacrifice, and
+ that it does not coincide formally with the Sacrifice of the
Cross.
It is easy to show that the sacrifice referred to by Malachias
did not signify a sacrifice of his time, but was rather to be a
future sacrifice belonging to the age of the Messiah. For though
the Hebrew participles of the original can be translated by the
present tense (there is sacrifice; it is offered), the mere
universality of the new sacrifice -- "from the rising to the
setting", "in every place", even "among the Gentiles", i.e.
heathen (non-Jewish) peoples -- is irrefragable proof that the
prophet beheld as present an event of the future. Wherever Jahwe
speaks, as in this case, of His glorification by the "heathen",
He can, according to Old Testament teaching (Ps. xxi, 28; lxxi,
10 sqq.; Is., xi, 9; xlix, 6; lx 9, lxvi, 18 sqq.; Amos, ix, 12;
Mich., iv. 2. etc.) have in mind only the kingdom of the Messiah
or the future Church of Christ; every other explanation is
shattered by the text. Least of all could a new sacrifice in the
time of the prophet himself be thought of. Nor could there be
any idea of is a sacrifice among the genuine heathens, as Hitzig
has suggested, for the sacrifices of the heathen, associated
with idolatry and impurity, are unclean and displeasing to God
(I Cor., x, 20). Again, it could not be a sacrifice of the
dispersed Jews (Diaspora), for apart from the fact that the
existence of such sacrifices in the Diaspora is rather
problematic, they were certainly not offered the world over, nor
did they possess the unusual significance attaching to special
modes of honouring God. Consequently, the reference is
undoubtedly to some entirely distinctive sacrifice of the
future. But of what future? Was it to be a future sacrifice
among genuine heathens, such as the Aztecs or the native
Africans? This is as impossible as in the case of other heathen
forms of idolatry. Perhaps then it was to be a new and more
perfect sacrifice among the Jews? This also is out of the
question, for since the destruction of Jerusalem by Titus (A.D.
70), the whole system of Jewish sacrifice is irrevocably a thing
of the past; and the new sacrifice moreover, is to be performed
by a priesthood of an origin other than Jewish (Is., lxvi, 21).
Everything, therefore, points to Christianity, in which, as a
matter of fact, the Messiah rules over non-Jewish peoples.
The second question now presents itself: Is the universal
sacrifice thus promised "in every place" to be only a purely
spiritual offering of prayer, in other words a sacrifice of
praise and thanksgiving, such as Protestanism is content with;
or is it to be a true sacrifice in the strict sense, as the
Catholic Church maintains? It is forthwith clear that abolition
and substitution must correspond, and accordingly that the old
real sacrifice cannot be displaced by a new unreal sacrifice.
Moreover, prayer, adoration, thanksgiving, etc., are far from
being a new offering, for they are permanent realities common to
every age, and constitute the indispensable foundation of every
religion whether before or after the Messiah.
The last doubt is dispelled by the Hebrew text, which has no
fewer than three classic sacerdotal declarations referring to
the promised sacrifice, thus designedly doing away with the
possibility of interpreting it metaphorically. Especially
important is a substantive Hebrew word for "sacrifice". Although
in its origin the generic term for every sacrifice, the bloody
included (cf.Gen., iv, 4 sq.; I Kings, ii, 17), it was not only
never used to indicate an unreal sacrifice (such as a prayer
offering), but even became the technical term for an unbloody
sacrifice (mostly food offerings), in contradistinction to the
bloody sacrifice which is given the name of Sebach.
As to the third and last proposition, no lengthy demonstration
is needed to show that the sacrifice of Malachias cannot be
formally identified with the Sacrifice of the Cross. This
interpretation is at once contradicted by the Minchah, i.e.
unbloody (food) offering. Then, there are other cogent
considerations based on fact. Though a real sacrifice, belonging
to the time of the Messiah and the most powerful means
conceivable for glorifying the Divine name, the Sacrifice of the
Cross, so far from being offered "in every place" and among
non-Jewish peoples, was confined to Golgotha and the midst of
the Jewish people. Nor can the Sacrifice of the Cross, which was
accomplished by the Saviour in person without the help of a
human representative priesthood, be identified with that
sacrifice for the offering of which the Messiah makes use of
priests after the manner of the Levites, in every place and at
all times. Furthermore, he wilfully shuts his eyes against the
light, who denies that the prophecy of Malachias is fulfilled to
the letter in the Sacrifice of the Mass. In it are united all
the characteristics of the promised sacrifice: its unbloody
sacrificial rite as genuine Minchah, its universality in regard
to place and time its extension to non-Jewish peoples, its
delegated priesthood differing from that of the Jews, its
essential unity by reason of the identity of the Chief Priest
and the Victim (Christ), and its intrinsic and essential purity
which no Levitical or moral uncleanliness can defile. Little
wonder that the Council of Trent should say (Sess XXII, cap.i):
"This is that pure oblation, which cannot be defiled by
unworthiness and impiety on the part of those who offer it, and
concerning which God has predicted through Malachias, that there
would be offered up a clean oblation in every place to His Name,
which would be great among the Gentiles (see Denzinger, n. 339).
2. New Testament
Passing now to the proofs contained in the New Testament, we may
begin by remarking that many dogmatic writers see in the
dialogue of Jesus with the Samaritan woman at Jacob's well a
prophetic reference to the Mass (John, iv, 21 sqq): Woman
believe me, that the hour cometh, when you shall neither on this
mountain [Garizim] nor in Jerusalem, adore the Father.... But
the hour cometh and now is, when the true adorers shall adore
the Father in spirit and in truth." Since the point at issue
between the Samaritans and the Jews related, not to the
ordinary, private offering of prayer practised everywhere, but
to the solemn, public worship embodied in a real Sacrifice,
Jesus really seems to refer to a future real sacrifice of
praise, which would not be confined in its liturgy to the city
Jerusalem but would captivate the whole world (see Bellarmine,
"De Euchar., v, 11). Not without good reason do most
commentators appeal to Heb., xiii, 10: We have an altar [
Thysiastesion, altare], whereof they have no power to eat [
Phagein, edere], who serve the tabernacle." Since St. Paul has
just contrasted the Jewish food offering (Bromasin, escis) and
Christian altar food, the partaking of which was denied to the
Jews, the inference is obvious: where is an altar, there is a
sacrifice. But the Eucharist is the food which the Christians
alone are permitted to eat: therefore there is a Eucharistic
sacrifice. The objection that, in Apostolic times, the term
altar was not yet used in the sense of the "Lord's table" (cf. I
Cor., x, 21) is clearly a begging of the question, since Paul
might well have been the first to introduce the name, it being
adopted from him by later writers (e.g. Ignatius of Antioch died
A.D. 107).
It can scarcely be denied that the entirely mystical explanation
of the "spiritual food from the altar of the cross", favoured by
St. Thomas Aquinas, Estius, and Stentrup, is far-fetched. It
might on the other hand appear still more strange that in the
passage of the Epistle to the Hebrews, where Christ and
Melchisedech are compared, the two food offerings should be only
not placed in prophetical relation with each other but not even
mentioned. The reason, however, is not far to seek: parallel lay
entirely outside the scope of the argument. All that St. Paul
desired to show was that the high priesthood of Christ was
superior to the Levitical priesthood of the Old Testament (cf.
Heb., vii, 4 sqq.), and this is fully demonstrated by proving
that Aaron and his priesthood stood far below the unattainable
height of Melchisedech. So much the more, therefore, must Christ
as "priest according to the order of Melchisedech" excel the
Levitical priesthood. The peculiar dignity of Melchisedech,
however, was manifested not through the fact that he made a food
offering of bread and wine, a thing which the Levites also were
able to do, but chiefly through the fact that he blessed the
great "Father Abraham and received the tithes from him".
The main testimony of the New Testament lies in the account of
the institution of the Eucharist, and most clearly in the words
of consecration spoken over the chalice. For this reason we
shall consider these words first, since thereby, owing to the
analogy between the two formulas clearer light will be thrown on
the meaning of the words of consecration spoken over the
chalice. For this reason we shall consider these words first,
since thereby, owing to the analogy between the two formulae,
clearer light will be thrown on the meaning of the words of
consecration pronounced over the bread. For the sake of
clearness and easy comparison we subjoin the four passages in
Greek and English:
+ Matt., xxvi, 28: Touto gar estin to aima mou to tes [kaines]
diathekes to peri pollon ekchynnomenon eis aphesin amartion.
For this is my blood of the new testament, which shall be shed
for many unto remission of sins.
+ Mark, xiv, 24: Touto estin to aima mou tes kaines diathekes to
yper pollon ekchynnomenon. This is my blood of the new
testament which shall be shed for many.
+ Luke, xxii, 20: Touto to poterion he kaine diatheke en to
aimati mou, to yper ymon ekchynnomenon. This is the chalice,
the new testament in my blood, which shall be shed for you.
+ I Cor., xi, 25: Touto to poterion he kaine diatheke estin en
to emo aimati. This chalice is the new testament in my blood.
The Divine institution of the sacrifice of the altar is proved
by showing
+ that the "shedding of blood" spoken of in the text took place
there and then and not for the first time on the cross;
+ that it was a true and real sacrifice;
+ that it was considered a permanent institution in the Church.
The present form of the participle ekchynnomenon in conjunction
with the present estin establishes the first point. For it is a
grammatical rule of New Testament Greek, that, when the double
present is used (that is, in both the participle and the finite
verb, as is the case here), the time denoted is not the distant
or near future, but strictly the present (see Fr. Blass,
"Grammatik des N. T. Griechisch", p. 193, Gottingen, 1896). This
rule does not apply to other constructions of the present tense,
as when Christ says earlier (John, xiv, 12): I go (poreuomai) to
the father". Alleged exceptions to the rule are not such in
reality, as, for instance, Matt., vi, 30: "And if the grass of
the field, which is today and tomorrow is cast into the oven
(ballomenon) God doth so clothe (amphiennysin): how much more
you, O ye of little faith?" For in this passage it is a question
not of something in the future but of something occurring every
day. When the Vulgate translates the Greek participles by the
future (effundetur, fundetur), it is not at variance with facts,
considering that the mystical shedding of blood in the chalice,
if it were not brought into intimate relation with the physical
shedding of blood on the cross, would be impossible and
meaningless; for the one is the essential presupposition and
foundation of the other. Still, from the standpoint of
philology, effunditur (funditur) ought to be translated into the
strictly present, as is really done in many ancient codices. The
accuracy of this exegesis is finally attested in a striking way
by the Greek wording in St. Luke: to poterion . . .
ekchynnomenon. Here the shedding of blood appears as taking
place directly in the chalice, and therefore in the present.
Overzealous critics, it is true, have assumed that there is here
a grammatical mistake, in that St. Luke erroneously connects the
"shedding" with the chalice (poterion), instead of with "blood"
(to aimati) which is in the dative. Rather than correct this
highly cultivated Greek, as though he were a school boy, we
prefer to assume that he intended to use synecdoche, a figure of
speech known to everybody, and therefore put the vessel to
indicate its contents.
As to the establishment of our second proposition, believing
Protestants and Anglicans readily admit that the phrase: "to
shed one's blood for others unto the remission of sins" is not
only genuinely Biblical language relating to sacrifice, but also
designates in particular the sacrifice of expiation (cf. Lev.,
vii 14; xiv, 17; xvii, 11; Rom. iii, 25, v, 9; Heb. ix, 10,
etc.). They, however, refer this sacrifice of expiation not to
what took place at the Last Supper, but to the Crucifixion the
day after. From the demonstration given above that Christ, by
the double consecration of bread and wine mystically separated
His Blood from His Body and thus in a chalice itself poured out
this Blood in a sacramental way, it is at once clear that he
wished to solemnize the Last Supper not as a sacrament merely
but also as a Eucharistic Sacrifice. If the "pouring out of the
chalice" is to mean nothing more than the sacramental drinking
of the Blood, the result is an intolerable tautology: "Drink ye
all of this, for this is my blood, which is being drunk". As,
however, it really reads "Drink ye all of this, for this is my
blood, which is shed for many (you) unto remission of sins," the
double character of the rite as sacrament and sacrifice is
evident. The sacrament is shown forth in the "drinking", the
sacrifice in the "shedding of blood". "The blood of the new
testament", moreover, of which all the four passages speak, has
its exact parallel in the analogous institution of the 0ld
Testament through Moses. For by Divine command he sprinkled the
people with the true blood of an animal and added, as Christ
did, the words of institution (Ex., xxiv, 8): "This is the blood
of the covenant (Sept.: idou to aima tes diathekes) which the
Lord hath made with you". St. Paul, however, (Heb., ix, 18 sq.)
after repeating this passage, solemnly demonstrates (ibid., ix,
11 sq) the institution of the New Law through the blood shed by
Christ at the crucifixion; and the Savior Himself, with equal
solemnity, says of the chalice: This is My Blood of the new
testament ". It follows therefore that Christ had intended His
true Blood in the chalice not only to be imparted as a
sacrament, but to be also a sacrifice for the remission of sins.
With the last remark our third statement, viz. as to the
permanency of the institution in the Church, is also
established. For the duration of the Eucharistic Sacrifice is
indissolubly bound up with the duration of the sacrament.
Christ's Last Supper thus takes on the significance of a Divine
institution whereby the Mass is established in His Church. St.
Paul (I Cor., xi, 25), in fact, puts into the mouth of the
Savior the words: "This do ye, as often as you shall drink, for
the commemoration of me".
We are now in a position to appreciate in their deeper sense
Christ's words of consecration over the bread. Since only St.
Luke and St. Paul have made additions to the sentence, "This is
My Body", it is only on them that we can base our demonstration.
+ Luke, xxii, 19: Hoc est corpus meum, quod pro vobis datur;
touto esti to soma mou to uper umon didomenon; This is my body
which is given for you.
+ I Cor., xi, 24: Hoc est corpus meum, quod pro vobis tradetur;
touto mou esti to soma to uper umon [klomenon]; This is my
body which shall be broken for you.
Once more, we maintain that the sacrifical "giving of the body"
(in organic unity of course with the "pouring of blood" in the
chalice) is here to be interpreted as a present sacrifice and as
a permanent institution in the Church. Regarding the decisive
point, i.e. indication of what is actually taking place, it is
again St. Luke who speaks with greatest clearness, for to soma
he adds the present participle, didomenon by which he describes
the "giving of the body" as something happening in the present,
here and now, not as something to be done in the near future.
The reading klomenon in St. Paul is disputed. According to the
best critical reading (Tischendorf, Lachmann) the participle is
dropped altogether so that St. Paul probably wrote: to soma to
uper umon (the body for you, i.e. for your salvation). There is
good reason, however, for regarding the word klomenon (from klan
to break) as Pauline, since St. Paul shortly before spoke of the
"breaking of bread" (I Cor, x, 16), which for him meant "to
offer as food the true body of Christ". From this however we may
conclude that the "breaking of the body" not only confines
Christ's action to the strictly present, especially as His
natural Body could not be "broken" on the cross (cf. Ex, xii,
46; John, xix, 32 sq), but also implies the intention of
offering a "body broken for you" (uper umon) i.e. the act
constituted in itself a true food offering. All doubt as to its
sacrificial character is removed by the expresslon didomenon in
St. Luke, which the Vulgate this time quite correctly translates
into the present: "quod pro vobis datur." But "to give one's
body for others" is as truly a Biblical expression for sacrifice
(cf. John, vi, 52; Rom., vii, 4; Col., i, 22: Heb, x, 10, etc.)
as the parallel phrase, "the shedding of blood". Christ,
therefore, at the least Supper offered up His Body as an
unbloody sacrifice. Finally, that He commanded the renewal for
all time of the Eucharistic sacrifice through the Church is
clear from the addition: "Do this for a commemoration of me"
(Luke, xxxii, 19; I Cor, xi, 24).
B. Proof from Tradition
Harnack is of opinion that the early Church up to the time of
Cyprian (d. 258) the contented itself with the purely spiritual
sacrifices of adoration and thanksgiving and that it did not
possess the sacrifice of the Mass, as Catholicism now
understands it. In a series of writings, Dr. Wieland, a Catholic
priest, likewise maintained in the face of vigorous opposition
from other theologians, that the early Christians confined the
essence of the Christian sacrifice to a subjective Eucharistic
prayer of thanksgiving, till Irenaeus (d. 202) brought forward
the idea of an objective offering of gifts, and especially of
bread and wine. He, according to this view, was the first to
include in his expanded conception of sacrifice, the entirely
new idea of material offerings (i.e. the Eucharistic elements)
which up to that time the early Church had formally repudiated.
Were this assertion correct, the doctrine of the Council of
Trent (Sess. XXII, c. ii), according to which in the Mass "the
priests offer up, in obedience to the command of Christ, His
Body and Blood" (see Denzinger, "Enchir", n. 949), could hardly
take its stand on Apostolic tradition; the bridge between
antiquity and the present would thus have broken by the abrupt
intrusion of a completely contrary view. An impartial study of
the earliest texts seems indeed to make this much clear, that
the early Church paid most attention to the spiritual and
subjective side of sacrifice and laid chief stress on prayer and
thanksgiving in the Eucharistic function.
This admission, however, is not identical with the statement
that the early Church rejected out and out the objective
sacrifice, and acknowledged as genuine only the spiritual
sacrifice as expressed in the "Eucharistic thanksgiving". That
there has been an historical dogmatic development from the
indefinite to the definite, from the implicit to the explicit,
from the seed to the fruit, no one familiar with the subject
will deny. An assumption so reasonable, the only one in fact
consistent with Christianity, is, however, fundamently different
from the hypothesis that the Christian idea of sacrifice has
veered from one extreme to the other. This is a priori
improbable and unproved in fact. In the Didache or "Teaching of
the Twelve Apostles", the oldest post-Biblical literary monument
(c. A.D. 96), not only is the" breaking of bread" (cf. Acts, xx,
7) referred to as a "sacrifice" (Thysia) and mention made of
reconciliation with one's enemy before the sacrifice (cf. Matt.,
v, 23), but the whole passage is crowned with an actual
quotation of the prophecy of Malachias, which referred, as is
well known, to an objective and real sacrifice (Didache, c.
xiv). The early Christians gave the name of "sacrifice"; not
only to the Eucharistic "thanksgiving," but also to the entire
ritual celebration including the liturgical "breaking of bread",
without at first distinguishing clearly between the prayer and
the gift (Bread and Wine, Body and Blood). When Ignatius of
Antioch (d. 107), a disciple of the Apostles, says of the
Eucharist: "There is only one flesh of Our Lord Jesus Christ,
only one chalice containing His one Blood, one altar (en
thysiasterion), as also only one bishop with the priesthood and
the deacons" (Ep., ad. Philad. iv), he here gives to the
liturgical Eucharistic celebration, of which alone he speaks, by
his reference to the "altar" an evidently sacrificial meaning,
often as he may use the word "altar" in other contexts in a
metaphorical sense.
A heated controversy had raged round the conception of Justin
Martyr (d. 166) from the fact that in his "Dialogue with
Tryphon" (c. 117) he characterizes "prayer and thanksgiving"
(euchai kai eucharistiai) as the "one perfect sacrifice
acceptable to God" (teleiai monai kai euarestoi thysiai). Did he
intend by thus emphasizing the interior spiritual sacrifice to
exclude the exterior real sacrifice of the Eucharist? Clearly he
did not, for in the same "Dialogue" (c. 41) he says the "food
offering" of the lepers, assuredly a real gift offering (cf.
Levit, xiv), was a figure (typos) of the bread of the Eucharist,
which Jesus commanded to be offered (poiein) in commemoration of
His sufferings." He then goes on: "of the sacrifices which you
(the Jews) formerly offered, God through Malachias said: 'I have
no pleasure, etc'. By the sacrifices (thysion), however, which
we Gentiles present to Him in every place, that is (toutesti) of
the bread of Eucharist and likewise of the chalice Eucharist, he
then said that we glorify his name, while you dishonour him".
Here "bread and chalice" are by the use of toutesti clearly
included as objective gift offerings in the idea of the
Christian sacrifice. If the other apologists (Aristides,
Athenagoras, Minucius Felix, Arnobius) vary the thought a great
deal -- God has no need of sacrifice; the best sacrifice is the
knowledge of the Creator; sacrifice and altars are unknown to
the Christians -- it is to be presumed not only that under the
imposed by the disciplina arcani they withheld the whole truth,
but also that they rightly repudiated all connection with pagan
idolatry, the sacrifice of animals, and heathen altars.
Tertullian bluntly declared: "we offer no sacrifice (non
sacrificamus) because we cannot eat both the Supper of God and
that of demons" (De spectac., c., xiii). And yet in another
passage (De orat., c., xix) he calls Holy Communion
"participation in the sacrifice" (participatio sacrificii),
which is accomplished "on the altar of God" (ad aram Dei); he
speaks (De cult fem., II, xi) of a real, not a mere
metaphorical, "offering up of sacrifice" (sacrificium offertur);
he dwells still further as a Montanist (de pudicit, c., ix) as
well on the "nourishing power of the Lord's Body" (opimitate
dominici corporis) as on the "renewal of the immolation of
Christ" (rursus illi mactabitur Christus).
With Irenaeus of Lyons there comes a turning point, in as much
as he, with conscious clearness, first puts forward "bread and
wine" as objective gift offerings, but at the same time
maintains that these elements become the "body and blood" of the
Word through consecration, and thus by simply combining these
two thoughts we have the Catholic Mass of today. According to
him (Adv. haer., iv, 18, 4) it is the Church alone "that offers
the pure oblation" (oblationem puram offert), whereas the Jews
"did not receive the Word, which is offered (or through whom an
offering is made) to God" (non receperunt Verbum quod [ aliter,
per quod] offertur Deo). Passing over the teaching of the
Alexandrine Clement and Origen, whose love of allegory, together
with the restrictions of the disciplina arcani, involved their
writings in mystic obscurity, we make particular mention of
Hippolytus of Rome (d. 235) whose celebrated fragment Achelis
has wrongly characterized as spurious. He writes (Fragm. in
Prov., ix, i, P. G., LXXX, 593), "The Word prepared His Precious
and immaculate Body (soma) and His Blood (aima), that daily
kath'ekasten) are set forth as a sacrifice (epitelountai
thyomena) on the mystic and Divine table (trapeze) as a memorial
of that ever memorable first table of the mysterious supper of
the Lord". Since according to the judgment of even Protestant
historians of dogma, St. Cyprian (d. 258) is to be regarded as
the "herald" of Catholic doctrine on the Mass, we may likewise
pass him over, as well as Cyril of Jerusalem (d. 386) and
Chrysostom (d. 407) who have been charged with exaggerated
"realism", and whose plain discourses on the sacrifice rival
those of Basil (d. 379), Gregory of Nyssa (d. c. 394) and
Ambrose (d. 397). Only about Augustine (d. 430) must a word be
said, since, in regard to the real presence of Christ in the
Eucharist he is cited as favouring the "symbolical" theory. Now
it is precisely his teaching on sacrifice that best serves to
clear away the suspicion that he inclined to a merely spiritual
interpretation.
For Augustine nothing is more certain than that every religion,
whether true or false, must have an exterior form of celebration
and worship (Contra Faust., xix, 11). This applies as well to
Christians (l. c., xx, 18), who "commemorate the sacrifice
consummated (on the cross) by the holiest oblation and
participation of the Body and Blood of Christ" (celebrant
sacrosancta oblatione et participatione corporis et sanguinis
Christi). The Mass is, in his eyes (De Civ. Dei, X, 20), the
"highest and true sacrifice" (summum verumque sacrificium),
Christ being at once "priest and victim" (ipse offerens, ipse et
oblatio) and he reminds the Jews (Adv. Jud, ix, 13) that the
sacrifice of Malachias is now made in every place (in omni loco
offerri sacrificium Christianorum). He relates of his mother
Monica (Confess., ix, 13) that she had asked for prayers at the
altar (ad altare) for her soul and had attended Mass daily. From
Augustine onwards the current of the Church's tradition flows
smoothly along in a well-ordered channel, without check or
disturbance, through the Middle Ages to our own time. Even the
powerful attempt made to stem it through the Reformation had no
effect.
A briefer demonstration of the existence of the Mass is the
so-called proof from prescription, which is thus formulated: A
sacrificial rite in the Church which is older than the oldest
attack made on it by heretics cannot be decried as "idolatry",
but must be referred back to the Founder of Christianity as a
rightful heritage of which He was the originator. Now the
Church's legitimate possession as regards the Mass can be traced
back to the beginnings of Christianity. It follows that the Mass
was Divinely instituted by Christ. Regarding the minor
proposition, the proof of which alone concerns us here, we may
begin at once with the Reformation, the only movement that
utterly did away with the Mass. Psychologically, it is quite
intelligible that men like Zwingli, Karlstadt and Oecolampadius
should tear down the altars, for they denied Christ's real
presence in the Sacrament. Calvinism also in reviling the
"papistical mass" which the Heidelberg catechism characterized
as "cursed idolatry" was merely self-consistent since it
admitted only a "dynamic" presence. It is rather strange on the
other hand that, in spite of his belief in the literal meaning
of the words of consecration, Luther, after a violent "nocturnal
disputation with the devil", in 1521, should have repudiated the
Mass. But it is exactly these measures of violence that best
show to what a depth the institution of the Mass had taken root
by that time in Church and people. How long had it been taking
root? The answer, to begin with is: all through the Middle Ages
back to Photius, the originator of the Eastern Schism (869).
Though Wycliffe protested against the teaching of the Council of
Constance (1414-18), which maintained that the Mass could be
proved from Scripture; and though the Albigenses and Waldenses
claimed for the laity also the power to offer sacrifice (cf.
Denzinger, "Enchir.", 585 and 430), it is none the less true
that even the schismatic Greeks held fast to the Eucharistic
sacrifice as a precious heritage from their Catholic past. In
the negotiations for reunion at Lyons (1274) and Florence (1439)
they showed moreover that they had kept it intact; and they have
faithfully safeguarded it to this day. From all which it is
clear that the Mass existed in both Churches long before
Photius, a conclusion borne out by the monuments of Christian
antiquity.
Taking a long step backwards from the ninth to the fourth
century, we come upon the Nestorians and Monophysites who were
driven out of the Church during the fifth century at Ephesus
(431) and Chalcedon (451). From that day to this they have
celebrated in their solemn liturgy the sacrifice of the New Law,
and since they could only have taken it with them from the old
Christian Church, it follows that the Mass goes back in the
Church beyond the time of Nestorianism and Monophysitism.
Indeed, the first Nicene Council (325) in its celebrated
eighteenth canon forbade priests to receive the Eucharist from
the hands of deacons for the very obvious reason that "neither
the canon nor custom have handed down to us, that those, who
have not the power to offer sacrifice (prospherein) may give
Christ's body to those who offer (prospherousi)". Hence it is
plain that for the celebration of the Mass there was required
the dignity of a special priesthood, from which the deacons as
such were excluded. Since, however, the Nicene Council speaks of
a "custom that takes us at once into the third century, we are
already in the age of the Catacombs with their Eucharistic
pictures, which according to the best founded opinions represent
the liturgical celebration of the Mass. According to Wilpert,
the oldest representation of the Holy Sacrifice is the "Greek
Chapel" in the Catacomb of St. Priscilla (c. 150). The most
convincing evidence, however, from those early days is furnished
by the liturgies of the West and the East, the basic principles
of which reach back to Apostolic times and in whch the
sacrifical idea of the Eucharistic celebration found
unadulterated and decisive expression (see LITURGIES). We have
therefore traced the Masses from the present to the earliest
times, thus establishing its Apostolic origin, which in turn
goes back again to the Last Supper.
II. THE NATURE OF THE MASS
In its denial of the true Divinity of Christ and of every
supernatural institution, modern unbelief endeavours, by means
of he so-called historico-religious method, to explain the
character of the Eucharist and the Eucharist sacrifice as the
natural result of a spontaneous process of development in the
Christian religion. In this connection it is interesting to
observe how these different and conflicting hypotheses refute
one another, with the rather startling result at the end of it
all that a new, great, and insoluble problem looms of the
investigation. While some discover the roots of the Mass in the
Jewish funeral feasts (O. Holtzmann) or in Jewish Essenism
(Bousset, Heitmuller, Wernle), others delve in the underground
strata of pagan religions. Here, however, a rich variety of
hypotheses is placed at their disposal. In this age of
Pan-Babylonism it is not at all surprising that the germinal
ideas of the Christian communion should be located in Babylon,
where in the Adapa myth (on the tablet of Tell Amarna) mention
has been found of "water of life" and "food of life" (Zimmern).
Others (e.g. Brandt) fancy they have found a still more striking
analogy in the "bread and water" (Patha and Mambuha) of the
Mandaean religion. The view most widely held today among
upholders of the historico-religious theory is that the
Eucharist and the Mass originated in the practices of the
Persian Mithraism (Dieterich, H. T. Holtzmann, Pfleiderer,
Robertson, etc.). "In the Mandaean mass" writes Cumont
("Mysterien des Mithra", Leipzig, 1903, p.118), "the celebrant
consecrated bread and water, which he mixed with perfumed
Haoma-juice, and ate this food while performing the functions of
divine service". Tertullian in anger ascribed this mimicking of
Christian rites to the "devil" and observed in astonishment (De
prescript haeret, C. xl): "celebrat (Mithras) et panis
oblationem." This is not the place to criticize in detail these
wild creations of an overheated imagination. Let it suffice to
note that all these explanations necessarily lead to
impenetrable night, as long as men refuse to believe in the true
Divinity of Christ, who commanded that His bloody sacrifice on
the Cross should be daily renewed by an unbloody sacrifice of
His Body and Blood in the Mass under the simple elements of
bread and wine. This alone is the origin and nature of the Mass.
A. The Physical Character of the Mass
In regard to the physical character there arises not only the
question as to the concrete portions of the liturgy, in which
the real offering lies hidden, but also the question regarding
the relation of the Mass to the bloody sacrifice of the Cross.
To begin with the latter question as much the more important,
Catholics and believing Protestants alike acknowledge that as
Christians we venerate in the bloody sacrifice of the Cross the
one, universal, absolute Sacrifice for the salvation of the
world. And this indeed is true in a double sense first, because
among all the sacrifices of the past and future the Sacrifice on
the Cross alone stands without any relation to, and absolutely
independent of, any other sacrifice, a complete totality and
unity in itself; second because every grace, means of grace and
sacrifice, whether belonging to the Jewish, Christian or pagan
economy, derive their whole undivided strength, value, and
efficiency singly and alone from this absolute sacrifice on the
Cross. The first consideration implies that all the sacrifices
of the Old Testament, as well as the Sacrifice of the Mass, bear
the essential mark of relativity, in so far as they are
necessarily related to the Sacrifice of the Cross, as the
periphery of a circle to the centre. From the second
consideration it follows that all other Sacrifices, the Mass
included, are empty, barren and void of effect, so far and so
long as they are not supplied from the mainstream of merits (due
to the suffering) of the Crucified. Let us deal briefly with
this double relationship.
Regarding the qualification of relativity, which adheres to
every sacrifice other than the sacrifice of the Cross, there is
no doubt that the sacrifices of the Old Testament by their
figurative forms and prophetic significance point to the
sacrifice of the Cross as their eventual fulfilment. The Epistle
to the Hebrews (viii-x) in particular develops grandly the
figurative character of the Old Testament. Not only was the
Levitie priesthood, as a "shadow of the things to come" a faint
type of the high priesthood of Christ, but the complex
sacrificial cult, broadly spread out in its parts, prefigured
the one sacrifice of the Cross. Serving only the legal
"cleansing of the flesh" the Levitical sacrifices could effect
no true "forgiveness of sins"; by their very inefficacy however
they point prophetically to the perfect Sacrifice of
propitiation on Golgotha. Just for that reason their continual
repetition as well as their great diversity was essential to
them, as a means of keeping alive in the Jews the yearning for
the true sacrifice of expiation which the future was to bring.
This longing was satiated only by the single Sacrifice of the
Cross, which was never again to be repeated. Naturally the Mass,
too, if it is to have the character of a legitimate sacrifice
must be in accord with this inviolable rule, no longer Indeed as
a type prophetic of future things, but rather as the living
realization and renewal of the past. Only the Last Supper,
standing midway as it were between the figure and its
fulfilment, still looked to the future, in so far as it was an
anticipatory commemoration of the sacrifice of the Cross. In the
discourse in which the Eucharist was instituted, the "giving of
the body" and the "Shedding of the Blood" were of necessity
related to the physical separation of the blood from the body on
the Cross, without which the sacramental immolation of Christ at
the Last Supper would be inconceivable. The Fathers of the
Church, such as Cyprian (Ep., lxiii, 9), Ambrose (De offic., I,
xlviii), Augustine (Contra Faust., XX, xviii) and Gregory the
Great (Dial., IV, lviii), insist that the Mass in its essential
nature must be that which Christ Himself characterized as a
"commemoration" of Him (Luke, xxii, 19) and Paul as the "showing
of the death of the Lord" (I Cor, xi, 26).
Regarding the other aspect of the Sacrifice on the Cross, viz.
the impossibility of its renewal, its singleness and its power,
Paul again proclaimed with energy that Christ on the Cross
definitively redeemed the whole world, in that he "by His own
Blood, entered once into the holier having obtained eternal
redemption" (Heb., ix 12). This does not mean that mankind is
suddenly and without the action of its own will brought back to
the state of innocence in Paradise and set above the necessity
of working to secure for itself the fruits of redemption.
Otherwise children would be in no need of baptism nor adults of
justifying faith to win eternal happiness. The "completion"
spoken of by Paul can therefore refer only to the objective side
of redemption, which does not dispense with, but on the contrary
requires, the proper subjective disposition. The sacrifice once
offered on the Cross filled the infinite reservoirs to
overflowing with healing waters but those who thirst after
justice must come with their chalices and draw out what they
need to quench their thirst. In this important distinction
between objective and subjective redemption, which belongs to
the essence of Christianity, lies not merely the possibility,
but also the justification of the Mass. But here unfortunately
Catholics and Protestants part company. The latter can see in
the Mass only a "denial of the one sacrifice of Jesus Christ".
This is a wrong view, for if the Mass can do and does no more
than convey the merits of Christ to mankind by means of a
sacrifice exactly as the sacraments do it without the use of
sacrifice, it stands to reason that the Mass is neither a second
independent sacrifice alongside of the sacrifice on the Cross,
nor a substitute whereby the sacrifice on the Cross is completed
or its value enhanced.
The only distinction between the Mass and the sacrament lies in
this: that the latter applies to the individual the fruits of
the Sacrifice on the Cross by simple distribution, the other by
a specific offering. In both, the Church draws upon the one
Sacrifice on the Cross. This is and remains the one Sun, that
gives life, light and warmth to everything; the sacraments and
the Mass are only the planets that revolve round the central
body. Take the Sun away and the Mass is annihilated not one whit
less than the sacraments. On the other hand, without these two
the Sacrifice on the Cross would reign as independently as,
conceivably the sun without the planets. The Council of Trent
(Sess. XXII, can. iv) therefore rightly protested against the
reproach that "the Mass is a blasphemy against or a derogation
from the Sacrifice on the Cross" (cf. Denzinger, "Enchir.",
951). Must not the same reproach be cast upon the Sacraments
also? Does it not apply to baptism and communion among
Protestants? And how can Christ Himself put blasphemy and
darkness in the way of His Sacrifice on the Cross when He
Himself is the High Priest, in whose name and by whose
commission His human representative offers sacrifice with the
words: "This is my Body, this is my Blood"? It is the express
teaching of the Church (cf. Trent, Sess. XXII, i) that the Mass
is in its very nature a "representation" (representatio), a
"commemoration" (memoria) and an "application" (applicatio) of
the Sacrifice of the Cross. When indeed the Roman Catechism (II,
c. iv, Q. 70) as a fourth relation, adopts the daily repetition
(instauratio), it means that such a repetition is to be taken
not in the sense of multiplication, but simply of an application
of the merits of the Passion. Just as the Church repudiates
nothing so much as the suggestion that by the Mass the sacrifice
on the Cross is as it were set aside, so she goes a step farther
and maintains the essential identity of both sacrifices, holding
that the main difference between them is in the different manner
of sacrifice -- the one bloody the other unbloody (Trent, Sess.
XXII, ii): "Una enim eademque est hostia idem nunc offerens
sacerdotum ministerio, qui seipsum tunc in cruce obtulit, sofa
offerendi ratione diversa". In as much as the sacrificing priest
(offerens) and the sacrificial victim (hostia) in both
sacrifices are Christ Himself, their same amounts even to a
numerical identity. In regard to the manner of the sacrifice
(offerendi ratio) on the other hand, it is naturally a question
only of a specific identity or unity that includes the
possibility of ten, a hundred, or a thousand masses.
B. The Constituent Parts of the Mass
Turning now to the other question as to the constituent parts of
the liturgy of the Mass in which the real sacrifice is to be
looked for we need only take into consideration its three chief
parts: the Offertory, the Consecration and the Communion. The
antiquated view of Johann Eck, according to which the act of
sacrifice was comprised in the prayer "Unde et memores . . .
offerimus", is thus excluded from our discussion, as is also the
of Melchior Canus, who held that the sacrifice is accomplished
in the symbolical ceremony of the breaking of the Host and its
commingling with the Chalice. The question therefore arises
first: Is the sacrifice comprised in the Offertory? From the
wording of the prayer this much at least is clear that bread and
wine constitute the secondary sacrificial elements of the Mass,
since the priest in the true language of sacrifice, offers to
God bread as an unspotted host (immaculatam hostiam) and wine as
the chalice of salvation (calicem salutaris). But the very
significance of this language proves that attention is mainly
directed to the prospective transubstantiation of the
Eucharistic elements. Since the Mass is not a mere offering of
bread and wine, like the figurative food offering of
Melchisedech, it is clear that only the Body and Blood of Christ
can be the primary matter of the sacrifice as was the case at
the Last Supper (cf. Trent, Sess. XXII, i, can. 2; Denzinger, n.
938, 949). Consequently the sacrifice is not in the Offertory.
Does it consist then in the priest's Communion? There were and
are theologians who favour that view. They can be ranged in two
classes, according as they see in the Communion the essential or
the co-essentlal.
Those who belong to the first category (Dominicus Soto, Renz,
Bellord) had to beware of the heretical doctrine proscribed by
the Council of Trent (Sess. XXII, can. 1), viz., that Mass and
Communion were identical. In American and English circles the
so-called "banquet theory" of the late Bishop Bellord once
created some stir (cf. The Ecclesiastical Review, XXXIII, 1905,
258 sq). According to that view, the essence of the sacrifice
was not to be looked for in the offering of a gift to God, but
solely in the Communion. Without communion there was no
sacrifice. Regarding pagan sacrifices Doellinger ("Heidentum und
Judentum", Ratisbon 1857) had already demonstrated the
incompatibility of this view. With the complete shedding of
blood pagan sacrifices ended, so that the supper which sometimes
followed it was expressive merely of the satisfaction felt at
the reconciliation with gods. Even the horrible human sacrifices
had as their object the death of the victim only and not a
cannibal feast. As to the Jews, only a few Levitical sacrifices,
such as the peace offering, had feasting connected with them;
most, and especially the burnt offerings (holocausta), were
accomplished without feasting (cf. Levlt., vi, 9 sq.). Bishop
Bellord, having cast in his lot with the "banquet theory", could
naturally find the essence of the Mass in the priests' Communion
only. He was indeed logically bound to allow that the
Crucifixion itself had the character of a sacrifice only in
conjunction with the Last Supper, at which alone food was taken;
for the Crucifixion excluded any ritual food offering. These
disquieting consequences are all the more serious in that they
are devoid of any scientific basis.
Harmless, even though improbable, is that other view
(Bellarmine, De Lugo, Tournely, etc.) which includes the
Communion as at least a co-essential factor in the constitution
of the Mass; for the consumption of the Host and of the contents
of the Chalice, being a kind of destruction, would appear to
accord with the conception of the sacrifice developed above. But
only in appearance; for the sacrificial transformation of the
victim must take place on the altar, and not in the body of the
celebrant, while the partaking of the two elements can at most
represent the burial and not the sacrificial death of Christ.
The Last Supper also would have been a true sacrifice only on
condition that Christ had given the Communion not only to His
apostles but also to Himself. There is however no evidence that
such a Communion ever took place, probable as it may appear. For
the rest, the Communion of the priest is not the sacrifice, but
only the completion of, and participation in, the sacrifice, it
belongs therefore not to the essence, but to the integrity of
the sacrifice. And this integrity is also preserved absolutely
even in the so-called "private Mass" at which the priest alone
communicates; private Masses are allowed for that reason (cf.
Trent, Sess. XXII, can. 8). When the Jansenist Synod of Pistoia
(1786), proclaiming the false principle that "participation in
the sacrifice is essential to the sacrifice", demanded at least
the making of a "spiritual communion" on the part of the
faithful as a condition of allowing private Masses, it was
denied by Pius VI in his Bull "Auctorem fidei" (1796) (see
Denzinger, n. 1528).
After the elimination of the Offertory and Communion, there
remains only the Consecration as the part in which the true
sacrifice is to be sought. In reality, that part alone is to be
regarded as the proper sacrificial act which is such by Christ's
own institution. Now the Lord's words are: "This is my Body;
this is my Blood." The Oriental Epiklesis cannot be considered
as the moment of consecration for the reason that it is absent
in the Mass in the West and is known to have first come into
practice after Apostolic times (see Eucharist). The sacrifice
must also be at the point where Christ personally appears as
High Priest and human celebrant acts only as his representative.
The priest does not however assume the personal part of Christ
either at the Offertory or Communion. He only does so when he
speaks the words: "This is My Body; this is My Blood", in which
there is no possible reference to the body and blood of the
celebrant. While the Consecration as such can be shown with
certainty to be the act of Sacrifice, the necessity of the
twofold consecration can be demonstrated only as highly
probable. Not only older theologlans such as Frassen, Gotti, and
Bonacina, but also later theologians such as Schouppen, Stentrup
and Fr. Schmid, have supported the untenable theory that when
one of the consecrated elements is invalid, such as barley bread
or cider, the consecration of the valid element not only
produces the Sacrament, but also the (mutilated) sacrifice.
Their chief argument is that the sacrament in the Eucharist is
inseparable in idea from the sacrifice. But they entirely
overlooked the fact that Christ positively prescribed the
twofold conscration for the sacrifice of the Mass (not for the
sacrament), and especially the fact that in the consecration of
one element only the intrinsically essential relation of the
Mass to the sacrifice of the Cross is not symbolically
represented. Since it was no mere death from suffocation that
Christ suffered, but a bloody death, in which His veins were
emptied of their Blood, this condition of separation must
receive visible representation on the altar, as in a sublime
drama. This condition is fulfilled only by the double
consecration, which brings before our eyes the Body and the
Blood in the state of separation, and thus represents the
mystical shedding of blood. Consequently, the double
consecration is an absolutely essential element of the Mass as a
relative sacrifice.
B. The Metaphysical Character of the Sacrifice of the Mass
The physical essence of the Mass having been established in the
consecration of the two species, the metaphysical question
arises as to whether and in what degree the scientific concept
of sacrifice is realized in this double consecration. Since the
three ideas, sacrificing priest, sacrificial gift, and
sacrificial object, present no difficulty to the understanding,
the problem is finally seen to lie entirely in the determination
of the real sacrificial act (actio sacrifica), and indeed not so
much in the form of this act as in the matter, since the
glorified Victim, in consequence of Its impassibility, cannot be
really transformed, much less destroyed. In their investigation
of the idea of destruction, the post-Tridentine theologians have
brought into play all their acuteness, often with brilliant
results, and have elaborated a series of theories concerning the
Sacrifice of the Mass, of which, however, we can discuss only
the most notable and important. But first, that we may have at
hand a reliable, critical standard wherewith to test the
validity or invalidity of the various theories, we maintain that
a sound and satisfactory theory must satisfy the following four
conditions:
+ the twofold consecration must show not only the relative, but
also the absolute moment of sacrifice, so that the Mass will
not consist in a mere relation, but will be revealed as in
itself a real sacrifice;
+ the act of sacrifice (actio sacrifica), veiled in the double
consecration, must refer directly to the sacrificial matter --
i.e. the Eucharistic Christ Himself -- not to the elements of
bread and wine or their unsubstantial species;
+ the sacrifice of Christ must somehow result in a kenosis, not
in a glorification, since this latter is at most the object of
the sacrifice, not the sacrifice itself;
+ since this postulated kenosis, however, can be no real, but
only a mystical or sacramental one, we must appraise
intelligently those moments which approximate in any degree
the "mystical slaying" to a real exinanition, instead of
rejecting them.
With the aid of these four criteria it is comparatively easy to
arrive at a decision concerning the probability or otherwise of
the different theories concerning the sacrifice of the Mass.
(i) The Jesuit Gabriel Vasquez, whose theory was supported by
Perrone in the last century, requires for the essence of an
absolute sacrifice only -- and thus, in the present case, for
the Sacrifice of the Cross -- a true destruction or the real
slaying of Christ, whereas for the idea of the relative
sacrifice of the Mass it suffices that the former slaying on the
Cross be visibly represented in the separation of Body and Blood
on the altar. This view soon found a keen critic in Cardinal de
Lugo, who, appealing to the Tridentine definition of the Mass as
a true and proper sacrifice, upbraided Vasquez for reducing the
Mass to a purely relative sacrifice. Were Jephta to arise again
today with his daughter from the grave, he argues (De Euchar,
disp. xix, sect. 4, n. 58), and present before our eyes a living
dramatic reproduction of the slaying of his daughter after the
fashion of a tragedy, we would undoubtedly see before us not a
true sacrifice, but a historic or dramatic representation of the
former bloody sacrifice. Such may indeed satisfy the notion of a
relative sacrifice, but certainly not the notion of the Mass
which includes in itself both the relative and the absolute (in
opposition to the merely relative) sacrificial moment. If the
Mass is to be something more than an Ober-Ammergau Passion Play,
then not only must Christ appear in His real personality on the
altar, but He must also be in some manner really sacrificed on
that very altar. The theory of Vasquez thus fails to fulfil the
first condition which we have named above.
To a certain extent the opposite of Vasquez's theory is that of
Cardinal Cienfuegos, who, while exaggerating the absolute moment
of the Mass, undervalues the equally essential relative moment
of the sacrifice. The sacrificial destruction of the Eucharistic
Christ he would find in the voluntary suspension of the powers
of sense (especially of sight and hearing), which the
sacramental mode of existence implies, and which lasts from the
consecration to the mingling of the two Species. But, apart from
the fact that one may not constitute a hypothetical
theologumenon the basis of a theory, one can no longer from such
a standpoint successfully defend the indispensability of the
double consecration. Equally difficult is it to find in the
Eucharistic Christ's voluntary surrender of his sensitive
functions the relative moment of sacrifice, i.e. the
representation of the bloody sacrifice of the Cross. The
standpoint of Suarez, adopted by Scheeben, is both exalting and
imposing; the real transformation of the sacrificial gifts he
refers to the destruction of the Eucharistic elements (in virtue
of the transubstantiation) at their conversion into the Precious
Body and Blood of Christ (immulatio perfectiva), just as, in the
sacrifice of incense in the Old Testament, the grains of incense
were transformed by fire into the higher and more precious form
of the sweetest odour and fragrance. But, since the antecedent
destruction of the substance of bread and wine can by no means
be regarded as the sacrifice of the Body and Blood of Christ,
Suarez is finally compelled to identify the substantial
production of the Eucharistic Victim with the sacrificing of the
same. Herein is straightway revealed a serious weakness, already
clearly perceived by De Lugo. For the production of a thing can
never be identical with its sacrifice; otherwise one might
declare the gardener's production of plants or the farmer's
raising of cattle a sacrifice. Thus, the idea of kenosis which
in the minds of all men is intimately linked with the notion of
sacrifice, and which we have given above as our third condition,
is wanting in the theory of Suarez. To offer something as a
sacrifice always means to divest oneself of it, even though this
self-divestment may finally lead to exaltation.
In Germany the profound, but poorly developed theory of Valentin
Thalhofer found great favour. We need not, however, develop it
here, especially since it rests on the false basis of a supposed
"heavenly sacrifice" of Christ, which, as the virtual
continuation of the Sacrifice of the Cross, becomes a temporal
and spatial phenomenon in the Sacrifice of the Mass. But, as
practically all other theologians teach, the existence of this
heavenly sacrifice (in the strict sense) is only a beautiful
theological dream, and at any rate cannot be demonstrated from
the Epistle to the Hebrews.
(ii) Disavowing the above-mentioned theories concerning the
Sacrifice of the Mass, theologians of today are again seeking a
closer approximation to the pre-Tridentine conception, having
realized that post-Tridentine theology had perhaps for polemical
reasons needlessly exaggerated the idea of destruction in the
sacrifice. The old conception, which our catechisms even today
proclaim to the people as the most natural and intelligible, may
be fearlessly declared the patristic and traditional view; its
restoration to a position of general esteem is the service of
Father Billot (De sacram., I, 4th ed., Rome, 1907, pp. 567
sqq.). Since this theory refers the absolute moment of the
sacrifice to the (active) "sacramental mystical slaying", and
the relative to the (passive) "separation of Body and Blood", it
has indeed made the "two-edged sword" of the double consecration
the cause from which the double character of the Mass as an
absolute (real in itself) and relative sacrifice proceeds. We
have an absolute sacrifice, for the Victim is -- not indeed in
specie propria, but in specie aliena -- sacramentally slain, we
have also a relative sacrifice, since the sacramental separation
of Body and Blood represents perceptibly the former shedding of
Blood on the Cross.
While this view meets every requirement of the metaphysical
nature of the Sacrifice of the Mass, we do not think it right to
reject offhand the somewhat more elaborate theory of Lessius
instead of utilizing it in the spirit of the traditional view
for the extension of the idea of a "mystical slaying". Lessius
(De perfect. moribusque div. XII, xiii) goes beyond the old
explanation by adding the not untrue observation that the
intrinsic force of the double consecration would have as result
an actual and true shedding of blood on the altar, if this were
not per accidens impossible in consequence of the impassibility
of the transfigured Body of Christ. Since ex vi verborum the
consecration of the bread makes really present only the Body,
and the consecration of the Chalice only the Blood, the tendency
or the double consecration is towards a formal exclusion of the
Blood from the Body. The mystical slaying thus approaches nearer
to a real destruction and the absolute sacrificial moment of the
Mass receives an important confirmation. In the light of this
view, the celebrated statement of St. Gregory of Nazianzus
becomes of special importance ("Ep. clxxi, ad Amphil." in P. G.,
XXXVII, 282): "Hesitate not to pray for me . . . when with
bloodless stroke [ anaimakto tome] thou separatest [ temnes] the
Body and Blood of the Lord; having speech as a sword [ phonen
echon to Xiphos]." As an old pupil of Cardinal Franzelin (De
Euchar., p. II, thes. xvi, Rome, 1887), the present writer may
perhaps speak a good word for the once popular, but recently
combatted theory of Cardinal De Hugo, which Franzelin revived
after a long period of neglect; not however that he intends to
proclaim the theory in its present form as entirely
satisfactory, since, with much to recommend it, it has also
serious defects. We believe, however, that this theory, like
that of Lessius, might be most profitably utilized to develop,
supplement, and deepen the traditional view. Starting from the
principle that the Eucharistic destruction can be, not a
physical but only a moral one, De Lugo finds this exinanition in
the voluntary reduction of Christ to the condition of food
(reductio ad statum cibi el potus), in virtue of which the
Saviour, after the fashion of lifeless food, leaves himself at
the mercy of mankind. That this is really equivalent to a true
kenosis no one can deny. Herein the Christian pulpit has at its
disposal a truly inexhaustible source of lofty thoughts
wherewith to illustrate in glowing language the humility and
love, the destitution and defencelessness of Our Saviour under
the sacramental veil, His magnanimous submission to irreverence,
dishonour, and sacrilege, and wherewith to emphasize that even
today that fire of self-sacrifice which once burned on the
Cross, still sends forth its tongues of flame in a mysterious
manner from the Heart of Jesus to our altars. While, in this
incomprehenslble condescension, the absolute moment of sacrifice
is disclosed in an especially striking manner, one is
reluctantly compelled to recognize the absence of two of the
other requisites: in the first place, the necessity of the
double consecration is not made properly apparent, since a
single consecration would suffice to produce the condition of
food, would therefore achieve the sacrifice; secondly, the
reduction to the state of articles of food reveals not the
faintest analogy to the blood -- shedding on the Cross, and thus
the relative moment of the Sacrifice of the Mass is not properly
dealt with. De Lugo's theory seems, therefore, of no service in
this connection. It renders, howover, the most useful service in
extending the traditional idea of a "mystical slaying", since
indeed the reduction of Christ to food is and purports to be
nothing else than the preparation of the mystically slain Victim
for the sacrificial feast in the Communion of the priest and the
faithful.
III. THE CAUSALITY OF THE MASS
In this section we shall treat: (a) the effects (effectus) of
the Sacrifice of the Mass, which practically coincide with the
various ends for which the Sacrifice is offered, namely
adoration, thanksgiving, impetration, and expiation; (b) the
manner of its efficacy (modus efliciendi), which lies in part
objectively in the Sacrifice of the Mass itself (ex opere
operato), and partly depends subjectively on the personal
devotion and piety of man (ex opere operantis).
A. The Effects of the Sacrifice of the Mass
The Reformers found themselves compelled to reject entirely the
Sacrifice of the Mass, since they recognized the Eucharist
merely as a sacrament. Both their views were founded on the
reflection, properly appraised above that the Bloody Sacrifice
of the Cross was the sole Sacrifice of Christ and of Christendom
and thus does not admit of the Sacrifice of the Mass. As a
sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving in the symbolical or
figurative sense, they had earlier approved of the Mass, and
Melanchthon resented the charge that Protestants had entirely
abolished it. What they most bitterly opposed was the Catholic
doctrine that the Mass is a sacrifice not only of praise and
thanksgiving, but also of impetration and atonement, whose
fruits may benefit others, while it is evident that a sacrament
as such can profit merely the recipient. Here the Council of
Trent interposed with a definition of faith (Sess. XXII, can.
iii): "If any one saith, that the Mass is only a sacrifice of
praise and thanksgiving. . . but not a propitiatory sacrifice;
or, that it profits only the recipient, and that it ought not to
be offered for the living and the dead for sins, punishments,
satisfactions, and other necessities; let him be anathema"
(Denzinger, n. 950). In this canon, which gives a summary of all
the sacrificial effects in order, the synod emphasizes the
propitiatory and impetratory nature of the sacrifice.
Propitiation (propitiatio) and petition (impetratio) are
distinguishable from each other, in as much as the latter
appeals to the goodness and the former to the mercy of God.
Naturally, therefore, they differ also as regards their objects,
since, while petition is directed towards our spiritual and
temporal concerns and needs of every kind, propitiation refers
to our sins (peccata) and to the temporal punishments (poenae),
which must be expiated by works of penance or satisfaction
(satisfactiones) in this life, or otherwise by a corresponding
suffering in purgatory. In all these respects the impetratory
and expiatory Sacrifice of the Mass is of the greatest utility,
both for the living and the dead.
Should a Biblical foundation for the Tridentine doctrine be
asked for, we might first of all argue in general as follows:
Just as there were in the Old Testament, in addition to
sacrifices of praise and thanksgiving, propitiatory and
impetratory sacrifices (cf. Lev., iv. sqq; II Kings, xxiv, 21
sqq., etc.), the New Testament, as its antitype, must also have
a sacrifice which serves and suffices for all these objects.
But, according to the prophecy of Malachias, this is the Mass,
which is to be celebrated by the Church in all places and at all
times. Consequently, the Mass is the impetratory and
propitiatory sacrifice. As for special reference to the
propitiatory character, the record of instituation states
expressly that the Blood of Christ is in the chalice "unto
remission of sins" (Matt., xxvi, 28).
The chief source of our doctrine, however, is tradition, which
from the earliest times declares the impetratory value of the
Sacrifice of the Mass. According to Tertullian (Ad scapula, ii),
the Christians sacrificed "for the welfare of the emperor" (pro
salute imperatoris); according to Chrysostom (Hom. xxi in Act.
Apost., n. 4), "for the fruits of the earth and other needs". St
Cyril of Jerusalem (d .386)) describes the liturgy of the Mass
of his day as follows ("Catech. myst." v, n. 8, in P. G.,
XXXIII, 1115): "After the spritual Sacrifice [ pneumatike
thysia], the unbloody service [ anaimaktos latreia] is
completed; we pray to God, over this sacrifice of propitiation [
epi tes thysias ekeines tou ilasmou] for the universal peace of
the churches, for the proper guidance of the world, for the
emperor, soldiers and companions, for the infirm and the sick,
for those stricken with trouble, and in general for all in need
of help we pray and offer up this sacrifice [ tauten
prospheromen ten thysian]. We then commemorate the patriarchs,
prophets, apostles, martyrs, that God may, at their prayers and
intercessions graciously accept our supplication. We afterwards
pray for the dead . . . since we believe that it will be of the
greatest advantage [ megisten onesin esesthai], if we in the
sight of the holy and most awesome Victim [ tes hagias kai
phrikodestates thysias] discharge our prayers for them. The
Christ, who was slain for our sins, we sacrifice [ Christon
esphagmenon yper ton emeteron amartematon prospheromen] to
propitiate the merciful God for those who are gone before and
for ourselves." This beautiful passage, which reads like a
modern prayer-book, is of interest in more than one connection.
It proves in the first place that Christian antiquity recognized
the offering up of the Mass for the deceased, exactly as the
Church today recognizes requiem Masses -- a fact which is
confirmed by other independent witnesses, e.g. Tertullian (De
monog., x), Cyprian (Ep. lxvi, n. 2), and Augustine (Confess.,
ix, 12). In the second place, it informs us that our so-called
Masses of the Saints also had their prototype among the
primitive Christians, and for this view we likewise find other
testimonies -- e.g. Tertullian (De Cor., iii) and Cyprian (Ep.
xxxix, n. 3). By a Saint's Mass is meant, not the offering up of
the Sacrifice of the Mass to a saint which would be impossible
without most shameful idolatry, but a sacrifice, which, while
offered to God alone, on the one hand thanks Him for the
triumphal coronation of the saints, and on the other aims at
procuring for us the saint's efficacious intercession with God.
Such is the authentic explanation of the Council of Trent (Sess.
XXII cap, iii, in Denzinger, n. 941). With this threefold
limitation, Masses "in honour of the saints" are certainly no
base "deception", but are morally allowable, as the Council of
Trent specifically declares (loc. cit. can. v); "If any one
saith, that it is an imposture to celebrate masses in honour of
the saints and for obtaining their intercession with God, as the
Church intends, let him be anathema". The general moral
permissibility of invoking the intercession of the saints,
concerning which this is not the place to speak, is of course
assumed in the present instance.
While adoration and thanksgiving are effects of the Mass which
relate to God alone, the success of impetration and expiation on
the other hand reverts to man. These last two effects are thus
also called by theologians the "fruits of the Mass" (fructus
missae) and this distinction leads us to the discussion of the
difficult and frequently asked question as to whether we are to
impute infinite or finite value to the Sacrifice of the Mass.
This question is not of the kind which may be answered with a
simple yes or no. For, apart from the already indicated
distinction between adoration and thanksgiving on the one hand
and impetration and expiation on the other, we must also sharply
distinguish between the intrinsic and the extrinsic value of the
Mass (valor intrinsecus, extrinsecus). As for its intrinsic
value, it seems beyond doubt that, in view of the infinite worth
of Christ as the Victim and High Priest in one Person, the
sacrifice must be regarded as of infinite value, just as the
sacrifice of the Last Supper and that of the Cross. Here
however, we must once more strongly emphasize the fact that the
ever-continued sacrificial activity of Christ in Heaven does not
and cannot serve to accumulate fresh redemptory merits and to
assume new objective value; it simply stamps into current coin,
so to speak, the redemptory merits definitively and perfectly
obtained in the Sacrifice of the Cross, and sets them into
circulation among mankind. This also is the teaching of the
Council of Trent (Sess. XXII cap. ii): "of which bloody oblation
the fruits are most abundantly obtained through this unbloody
one [the Mass]." For, even in its character of a sacrifice of
adoration and thanksgiving, the Mass draws its whole value and
all Its power only from the Sacrifice of the Cross which Christ
makes of unceasing avail in Heaven (cf. Rom. viii, 34; Heb.,
vii, 25). There is, however, no reason why this intrinsic value
of the Mass derived from the Sacrifice of the Cross, in so far
as it represents a sacrifice of adoration and thanksgiving,
should not also operate outwardly to the full extent of its
infinity, for it seems inconceivable that the Heavenly Father
could accept with other than infinite satisfaction the sacrifice
of His only-begotten Son. Consequently God, as Malachias had
already prophesied, is in a truly infinite degree honoured,
glorified, and praised in the Mass; through Our Lord Jesus
Christ he is thanked by men for all his benefits in an infinite
manner, in a manner worthy of God.
But when we turn to the Mass as a sacrifice of impetration and
expiation, the case is different. While we must always regard
its intrinsic value as infinite, since it is the sacrifice of
the God-Man Himself, its extrinsic value must necessarily be
finite in consequence of the limitations of man. The scope of
the so-called "fruits of the Mass" is limited. Just as a tiny
chip of wood can not within it the whole energy of the sun, so
also, and in a still greater degree, is man incapable of
converting the boundless value of the impetratory and expiatory
sacrifice into an infinite effect for his soul. Wherefore, in
practice, the impetratory value of the sacrifice is always as
limited as is its propitiatory and satisfactory value. The
greater or less measure of the fruits derived will naturally
depend very much on the pesonal efforts and worthiness, the
devotion and fervour of those who celebrate or are present at
Mass. This limitation of the fruits of the Mass must, however,
not be misconstrued to mean that the presence of a large
congregation causes a diminution of the benefits derived from
the Sacrifice by the individual, as if such benefits were after
some fashion divided into so many aliquot parts. Neither the
Church nor the Christian people has any tolerance for the false
principle: "The less the number of the faithful in the church,
the richer the fruits". On the contrary the Bride of Christ
desires for every Mass a crowded church, being rightly convinced
that from the unlimited treasures of the Mass much more grace
win result to the individual from a service participated in by a
full congregation, than from one attended merely by a few of the
faithful. This relative infinite value refers indeed only to the
general fruit of the Mass (fructus generalis), and not to the
special (fructus specialis) two terms whose distinction will be
more clearly characterized below. Here, however, we may remark
that by the special fruit of the Mass is meant that for the
application of which according to a special intention a priest
may accept a stipend.
The question now arises whether in this connection the
applicable value of the Mass is to be regarded as finite or
infinite (or, more accurately, unlimited). This question is of
importance in view of the practical consequences it involves.
For, if we decide in favour of the unlimited value, a single
Mass celebrated for a hundred persons or intentions is as
efficacious as a hundred Masses celebrated for a single person
or intention. On the other hand, it is clear that, if we incline
towards a finite value, the special fruit is divided pro rata
among the hundred persons. In their quest for a solution of this
question, two classes of theologians are distinguished according
to their tendencies: the minority (Gotti, Billuart, Antonio
Bellarini, etc.) are inclined to uphold the certainty or at
least the probability of the former view, arguing that the
infinite dignity of the High Priest Christ can not be limited by
the finite sacrificial activity of his human representative.
But, since the Church has entirely forbidden as a breach of
strict justice that a priest should seek to fulfil, by reading a
single Mass, the obligations imposed by several stipends (see
Denzinger, n. 1110) these theologians hasten to admit that their
theory is not to be translated into practice, unless the priest
applies as many individual Masses for all the intentions of the
stipend-givers as he has received stipends. But in as much as
the Church has spoken of strict justice (justitia commutativa),
the overwhelming majority of theologians incline even
theoretically to the conviction that the satisfactory -- and,
according to many, also the propitiatory and impetratory --
value of a Mass for which a stipend has been taken, is so
strictly circumscribed and limited from the outset, that it
accrues pro rata (according to the greater or less number of the
living or the dead for whom the Mass is offered) to each of the
individuals. Only on such a hypothesis is the custom prevailing
among the faithful of having several Masses celebrated for the
deceased or for their intentions intelligible. Only on such a
hypothesis can one explain the widely established "Mass
Association", a pious union whose members voluntarily bind
themselves to read or get read at least one Mass annually for
the poor souls in purgatory. As early as the eighth century we
find in Germany a so-called "Totenbund" (see Pertz, "Monum.
Germaniae hist.: Leg.", II, i, 221). But probably the greatest
of such societies is the Messbund of Ingolstadt, founded in
1724; it was raised to a confraternity (Confraternity of the
Immaculate Conception) on 3 Feb., 1874, and at present counts
680,000 members (cf. Beringer, "Die Ablasse, ihr Wesen u. ihr
Gebrauch", 13th ed., Paderborn, 1906, pp. 610 sqq.). Tournely
(De Euch. q. viii, a. 6) has also sought in favour of this view
important internal grounds of probability, for example by
adverting to the visible course of Divine Providence: all
natural and supernatural effects in general are seen to be slow
and gradual, not sudden or desultory, wherefore it is also the
most holy intention of God that man should, by his personal
exertions, strive through the medium of the greatest possible
number of Masses to participate in the fruits of the Sacrifice
of the Cross.
B. The Manner of Efficacy of the Mass
In theological phrase an effect "from the work of the action"
(ex opere operato) signifies a grace conditioned exclusively by
the objective bringing into activity of a cause of the
supernatural order, in connection with which the proper
disposition of the subject comes subsequently into account only
as an indispensable antecedent condition (conditio sine qua
non), but not as a real joint cause (concausa). Thus, for
example, baptism by its mere ministration produces ex opere
operato interior grace in each recipient of the sacrament who in
his heart opposes no obstacle (obez) to the reception of the
graces of baptism. On the other hand, all supernatural effects,
which, presupposing the state of grace are accomplished by the
personal actions and exertions of the subject (e.g. everything
obtained by simple prayer), are called effects "from the work of
the agent"; (ex opere operantis). we are now confronted with the
difficult question: In what manner does the Eucharistic
Sacrifice accomplish its effects and fruits? As the early
scholastics gave scarcely any attention to this problem, we are
indebted for almost all the light thrown upon it to the later
scholastics.
(i) It is first of all necessary to make clear that in every
sacrifice of the Mass four distinct categories of persons really
participate.
At the head of all stands of course the High Priest, Christ
Himself; to make the Sacrifice of the Cross fruitful for us and
to secure its application, He offers Himself as a sacrifice,
which is quite independent of the merits or demerits of the
Church, the celebrant or the faithful present at the sacrifice,
and is for these an opus operatum.
Next after Christ and in the second place comes the Church as a
juridical person, who, according to the express teaching of the
Council of Trent (Sess. XXII, cap. i), has received from the
hands of her Divine Founder the institution of the Mass and also
the commission to ordain constantly priests and to have
celebrated by these the most venerable Sacrifice. This
intermediate stage between Christ and the celebrant may be
neither passed over nor eliminated, since a bad and immoral
priest, as an ecclesiastical official, does not offer up his own
sacrifice -- which indeed could only be impure -- but the
immaculate Sacrifice of Christ and his spotless Bride, which can
be soiled by no wickedness of the celebrant. But to this special
sacrificial activity of the Church, offering up the sacrifice
together with Christ, must also correspond a special
ecclesiastico-human merit as a fruit, which, although in itself
an opus operantis of the Church, is yet entirely independent of
the worthiness of the celebrant and the faithful and therefore
constitutes for these an opus operatum. When, however, as De
Lugo rightly points out, an excommunicated or suspended priest
celebrates in defiance of the prohibition of the Church, this
ecclesiastieal merit is always lost, since such a priest no
longer acts in the name and with the commission of the Church.
His sacrifice is nevertheless valid, since, by virtue of his
priestly ordination, he celebrates in the name of Christ, even
though in opposition to His wishes, and, as the self-sacrifice
of Christ, even such a Mass remains essentially a spotless and
untarnished sacrifice before God. We are thus compelled to
concur in another view of De Lugo, namely that the greatness and
extent of this ecclesiastical service is dependent on the
greater or less holiness of the reigning pope, the bishops, and
the clergy throughout the World, and that for this reason in
times of ecclesiastical decay and laxity of morals (especially
at the papal court and among the episcopate) the fruits of the
Mass, resulting from the sacrificial activity of the Church,
might under certain circumstances easily be very small.
With Christ and His Church is associated in third place the
celebrating priest, since he is the representative through whom
the real and the mystical Christ offer up the sacrifice. If,
therefore, the celebrant be a man of great personal devotion,
holiness, and purity, there will accrue an additional fruit
which will benefit not himself alone, but also those in whose
favour he applies the Mass. The faithful are thus guided by
sound instinct when they prefer to have Mass celebrated for
their intentions by an upright and holy priest rather than by an
unworthy one, since, in addition to the chief fruit of the Mass,
they secure this special fruit which springs ex opera operantis,
from the piety of the celebrant.
Finally, in the fourth place, must be mentioned those who
participate actively in the Sacrifice of the Mass, e.g., the
servers, sacristan, organist, singers, and the whole
congregation joining in the sacrifice. The priest, therefore,
prays also in their name: Offerimus (i.e. we offer). That the
effect resulting from this (metaphorical) sacrificial activity
is entirely dependent on the worthiness and piety of those
taking part therein and thus results exclusively ex opere
operantis is evident without further demonstration. The more
fervent the prayer, the richer the fruit. Most intimate is the
active participation in the Sacrifice of those who receive Holy
Communion during the Mass since in their case the special fruits
of the Communion are added to those of the Mass. Should
sacramental Communion be impossible, the Council of Trent (Sess.
XXII. cap. vi) advises the faithful to make at least a
"spiritual communion" (spirituali effectu communicare), which
consists in the ardent desire to receive the Eucharist. However,
as we have already emphasized, the omission of real or spiritual
Communion on the part of the faithful present does not render
the Sacrifice of the Mass either invalid or unlawful, wherefore
the Church even permits "private Masses", which may on
reasonable grounds be celebrated in a chapel with closed doors.
(ii) In addition to the active, there are also passive
participators in the Sacrifice of the Mass. These are the
persons in whose favour -- it may be even without their
knowledge and in opposition to their wishes -- the Holy
Sacrifice is offered. They fall into three categories: the
community, the celebrant, and the person (or persons) for whom
the Mass is specially applied. To each of these three classes
corresponds ex opere operato a special fruit of the Mass,
whether the same be an impetratory effect of the Sacrifice of
Petition or a propitiatory and satisfactory effect of the
Sacrifice of Expiation. Although the development of the teaching
concerning the threefold fruit of the Mass begins only with
Scotus (Quaest. quodlibet, xx), it is nevertheless based on the
very essence of the Sacrifice itself. Since, according to the
wording of the Canon of the Mass, prayer and sacrifice is
offered for all those present, the whole Church, the pope, the
diocesan bishop, the faithful living and dead, and even "for the
salvation of the whole world", there must first of all result a
"general fruit" (fructus generalis) for all mankind, the
bestowal of which lies immediately in the will of Christ and His
Church, and can thus be frustrated by no contrary intention of
the celebrant. In this fruit even the excommunicated, heretics,
and infidels participate, mainly that their conversion may thus
be effected. The second kind of fruit (fructus personalis,
specialissimus) falls to the personal share of the celebrant,
since it were unjust that he -- apart from his worthiness and
piety (opus operantis) -- should come empty-handed from the
sacrifice. Between these two fruits lies the third, the
so-called "special fruit of the Mass" (fructus specialis,
medius, or ministerialis), which is usually applied to
particular living or deceased persons according to the intention
of the celebrant or the donor of a stipend. This "application"
rests so exclusively in the hands of the priest that even the
prohibition of the Church cannot render it inefficacious,
although the celebrant would in such a case sin through
disobedience. For the existence of the special fruit of the
Mass, rightly defended by Pius VI against the Jansenistic Synod
of Pistoia (1786), we have the testimony also of Christian
antiquity, which offered the Sacrifice for special persons and
intentions. To secure in all cases the certain effect of this
fructus specialis, Suarez (De Euch., disp. lxxix, Sect. 10)
gives priests the wise advice that they should always add to the
first a "second intention" (intentio secunda), which, should the
first be inefficacious, will take its place.
(iii) A last and an entirely separate problem is afforded by the
special mode of efficacy of the Sacrifice of Expiation. As an
expiatory sacrifice, the Mass has the double function of
obliterating actual sins, especially mortal sins (effectus
stricte propitiatorius), and also of taking away, in the case of
those already in the state of grace, such temporal punishments
as may still remain to be endured (effectus satisfactorius). The
main question is: Is this double effect ex opere operato
produced mediately or immediately? As regards the actual
forgiveness of sin, it must, in opposition to earlier
theologians (Aragon, Casalis, Gregory of Valentia), be
maintained as undoubtedly a certain principle, that the
expiatory sacrifice of the Mass can never accomplish the
forgiveness of mortal sins otherwise than by way of contrition
and penance, and therefore only mediately through procuring the
grace of conversion (cf. Council of Trent, Sess. XXII, cap. ii:
"donum paenitentiae concedens"). With this limitation, however,
the Mass is able to remit even the most grievous sins (Council
of Trent, 1. c., "Crimina et peccata etiam ingentia dimittit").
Since, according to the present economy of salvation, no sin
whatsoever, grievous or trifling, can be forgiven without an act
of sorrow, we must confine the efficacy of the Mass, even in the
case of venial sins, to obtaining for Christians the grace of
contrition for less serious sins (Sess. XXII, cap. i). It is
indeed this purely mediate activity which constitutes the
essential distinction between the sacrifice and the sacrament.
Could the Mass remit sins immediately ex opere operato, like
Baptism or Penance, it would be a sacrament of the dead and
cease to be a sacrifice (see Sacrament). Concerning the
remission of the temporal punishment due to sin, however, which
appears to be effected in an immediate manner, our judgment must
be different. The reason lies in the intrinsic distinction
between sin and its punishment. Without the personal cooperation
and sorrow of the sinner, all forgiveness of sin by God is
impossible; this cannot however be said of a mere remission of
punishment. One person may validly discharge the debts or fines
of another, even without apprising the debtor of his intention.
The same rule may be applied to a just person, who, after his
justification, is still burdened with temporal punishment
consequent on his sins. It is certain that, only in this
immediate way, can assistance be given to the poor souls in
purgatory through the Sacrifice of the Mass, since they are
henceforth powerless to perform personal works of satisfaction
(cf. Council of Trent, Sess. XXV, de purgat.). From this
consideration we derive by analogy the legitimate conclusion
that the case exactly the same as regards the living.
C. Practical Questions Concerning the Mass
From the exceedingly high valuation, which the Church places on
the Mass as the unbloody Sacrifice of the God-Man, issue, as it
were spontaneously all those practical precepts of a positive or
a negative nature, which are given in the Rubrics of the Mass,
in Canon Law, and in Moral Theology. They may be conveniently
divided into two categories, according as they are intended to
secure in the highest degree possible the objective dignity of
the Sacrifice or the subjective worthiness of the celebrant.
1. Precepts for the Promotion of the Dignity of the Sacrifice
(a) One of the most important requisites for the worthy
celebration of the Mass is that the place in which the all-holy
Mystery is to be celebrated should be a suitable one. Since, in
the days of the Apostolic Church, there were no churches or
chapels, private houses with suitable accommodation were
appointed for the solemnization of "the breaking of bread" (cf.
Acts, ii, 46; xx, 7 sq.; Col., iv, 15; Philem., 2). During the
era of the persecutions the Eucharistic services in Rome were
transferred to the catacombs, where the Christians believed
themselves secure from government agents. The first "houses of
God" reach back certainly to the end of the second century, as
we learn from Tertullian (Adv. Valent., iii) and Clement of
Alexandria (Strom., I, i). In the second half of the fourth
century (A.D. 370), Optatus of Mileve (De Schism. Donat. II, iv)
could already reckon more than forty basilicas which adorned the
city of Rome. From this period dates the prohibition of the
Synod of Laodicea (can. lviii) to celebrate Mass in private
houses. Thenceforth the public churches were to be the sole
places of worship. In the Middle Ages the synods granted to
bishops the right of allowing house-chapels within their
dioceses. According to the law of today (Council of Trent, Sess.
XXII, de reform.), the Mass may be celebrated only in Chapels
and public (or semi-public) oratories, which must be consecrated
or at least blessed. At present, private chapels may be erected
only in virtue of a special papal indult (S.C.C., 23 Jan., 1847,
6 Sept., 1870). In the latter case, the real place of sacrifice
is the consecrated altar (or altar-stone), which must be placed
in a suitable room (cf. Missale Romanum, Rubr. gen., tit. xx).
In times of great need (e.g. war, persecution of Catholics), the
priest may celebrate outside the church, but naturally only in a
becoming place, provided with the most necessary utensils. On
reasonable grounds the bishop may, in virtue of the so-called
"quinquennial faculties", allow the celebration of Mass in the
open air, but the celebration of Mass at sea is allowed only by
papal indult. In such an indult it is usually provided that the
sea be calm during the celebration, and that a second priest (or
deacon) be at hand to prevent the spilling of the chalice in
case of the rocking of the ship.
(b) For the worthy celebration of Mass the circumstance of time
is also of great importance. In the Apostolic age the first
Christians assembled regularly on Sundays for "the breaking of
bread" (Acts, xx, 7: "on the first day of the week"), which day
the "Didache" (c. xiv), and later Justin Martyr (I Apol., lxvi),
already name "the Lord's day".
Justin himself seems to be aware only of the Sunday celebration,
but Tertullian adds the fast-days on Wednesday and Friday and
the anniversaries of the martyrs ("De cor. mil.", iii; "De
orat.", xix). As Tertullian calls the whole paschal season
(until Pentcost) "one long feast", we may conclude with some
justice that during this period the faithful not only
communicated daily, but were also present at the Eucharistic
Liturgy. As regards the time of the day, there existed in the
Apostolic age no fixed precepts regarding the hour at which the
Eucharistic celebration should take place. The Apostle Paul
appears to have on occasion "broken bread" about midnight (Acts,
xx, 7). But Pliny the Younger, Governor of Bithynia (died A.D.
114), already states in his official report to Emperor Trajan
that the Christians assembled in the early hours of the morning
and bound themselves by a sacramentum (oath), by which we can
understand today only the celebration of the mysteries.
Tertullian gives as the hour of the assembly the time before
dawn (De cor. mil., iii: antelucanis aetibus). When the fact was
adverted to that the Saviour's Resurrection occurred in the
morning before sunrise, a change of the hour set in, the
celebration of Mass being postponed until this time. Thus
Cyprian writes of the Sunday celebration (Ep., lxiii): "we
celebrate the Resurrection of the Lord in the morning." Since
the fifth century the "third hour" (i.e. 9 a.m.) was regarded as
"canonical" for the Solemn Mass on Sundays and festivals. When
the Little Hours (Prime, Terce, Sext, None) began in the Middle
Ages to lose their significance as "canonical hours", the
precepts governing the hour for the conventual Mass received a
new meaning. Thus, for example, the precepts that the conventual
Mass should be held after None on fast days does not signify
that it be held between midday and evening, but only that "the
recitation of None in choir is followed by the Mass". It is in
general left to the discretion of the priest to celebrate at any
hour between dawn and midday (ab aurora usque ad meridiem). It
is proper that he should read beforehand Matins and Lauds from
his breviary.
The sublimity of the Sacrifice of the Mass demands that the
priest should approach the altar wearing the sacred vestments
(amice, stole, cincture, maniple, and chasuble). Whether the
priestly vestments are historical developments from Judaism or
paganism, is a question still discussed by archaeologists. In
any case the "Canones Hippolyti" require that at Pontifical Mass
the deacons and priests appear in "white vestments", and that
the lectors also wear festive garments. No priest may celebrate
Mass without light (usually two candles), except in case of
urgent necessity (e.g. to consecrate a Host as the Viaticum for
a person seriously ill). The altar-cross is also necessary as an
indication that the Sacrifice of the Mass is nothing else than
the unbloody reproduction of the Sacrifice of the Cross.
Usually, also, the priest must be attended at the altar by a
server of the male sex. The celebration of Mass without a server
is allowed only in case of need (e.g. to procure the Viaticum
for a sick person, or to enable the faithful to satisfy their
obligation of hearing Mass). A person of the female sex may not
serve at the altar itself, e.g. transfer the missal, present the
cruets, etc. (S.R.C., 27 August, 1836). Women (especially nuns)
may, however, answer the celebrant from their places, if no male
server be at hand. During the celebration of Mass a simple
priest may not wear any head-covering -- whether biretta,
pileolus, or full wig (comae fictitiae) -- but the bishop may
allow him to wear a plain perruque as a protection for his
hairless scalp.
(c) To preserve untarnished the honour of the most venerable
sacrifice, the Church has surrounded with a strong rampart of
special defensive regulations the institution of
"mass-stipends"; her intention is on the one hand to keep remote
from the altar all base avarice, and on the other, to ensure and
safeguard the right of the faithful to the conscientious
celebration of the Masses bespoken.
By a mass-stipend is meant a certain monetary offering which
anyone makes to the priest with the accompaning obligation of
celebrating a Mass in accordance with the intentions of the
donor (ad intentionem dantis). The obligation incurred consists,
concretely speaking, in the application of the "special fruit of
the Mass" (fructus specialis), the nature of which we have
alreadly described in detail (A, 3). The idea of the stipend
emanates from the earliest ages, and its justification lies
incontestably in the axiom of St. Paul (I Cor., ix, 13): "They
that serve the altar, partake with the altar". Originally
consisting of the necessaries of life, the stipend was at first
considered as "alms for a Mass" (eleemosyna missarum), the
object being to contribute to the proper support of the clergy.
The character of a pure alms has been since lost by the stipend,
since such may be accepted by even a wealthy priest. But the
Pauline principle applies to the wealthy priest just as it does
to the poor. The now customary money-offering, which was
introduced about the eighth century and was tacitly approved by
the Church, is to be regarded merely as the substitute or
commutation of the earlier presentation of the necessaries of
life. In this very point, also, a change from the ancient
practice has been introduced, since at present the individual
priest receives the stipend personally, whereas formerly all the
clergy of the particular church shared among them the total
oblations and gifts. In their present form, the whole matter of
stipends has been officially taken by the Church entirely under
her protection, both by the Council of Trent (Sess. XXII, de
ref. ) and by the dogmatic Bull "Auctorem fidei" (1796) of Pius
VI (Denzinger, n. 1554). Since the stipend, in its origin and
nature, claims to be and can be nothing else than a lawful
contribution towards the proper support of the clergy, the false
and foolish views of the ignorant are shown to be without
foundation when they suppose that a Mass may he simoniacally
purchased with money (Cf. Summa Theologica II-II:100:2). To
obviate all abuses concerning of the amount of the stipend,
there exists in each diocese a fixed "mass-tax" (settled either
by ancient custom or by an episcopal regulation), which no
priest may exceed, unless extraordinary inconvenience (e.g. long
fasting or a long journey on foot) justifies a somewhat larger
sum. To eradicate all unworthy greed from among both laity and
clergy in connection with a thing so sacred, Pius IX in his
Constitution "Apostolicae Sedis" of 12 Oct., 1869, forbade under
penalty of excommunication the commercial traffic in stipends
(mercimonium missae stipendiorum). The trafficking consists in
reducing the larger stipend collected to the level of the "tax",
and appropriating the surplus for oneself. Into the category of
shameful traffic in stipends also falls the reprehensible
practice of booksellers and tradesmen, who organize public
collections of stipends and retain the money contributions as
payment for books, merchandise, wines, etc., to be delivered to
the clergy (S.C.C., 31 Aug., 1874, 25 May, 1893). As special
punishment for this offence, suspensio a divinis reserved to the
pope is proclaimed against priests, irregularity against other
clerics, and excommunication reserved to the bishop, against the
laity.
Another bulwark against avarice is the strict regulation of the
Church, binding under pain of mortal sin, that priests shall not
accept more intentions than they can satisfy within a reasonable
period (S.C.C, 1904). This regulation was emphasized by the
additional one which forbade stipends to be transferred to
priests of another diocese without the knowledge of their
ordinaries (S.C.C., 22 May, 1907). The acceptance of a stipend
imposes under pain of mortal sin the obligation not only of
reading the stipulated Mass, but also of fulfilling
conscientiously all other appointed conditions of an important
character (e.g. the appointed day, altar, etc.). Should some
obstacle arise, the money must either be returned to the donor
or a substitute procured. In the latter case, the substitute
must be given, not the usual stipend, but the whole offering
received (cf. Prop. ix damn. 1666 ab Alex. VIII in Denzinger, n.
1109), unless it be indisputably clear front the circumstances
that the excess over the usual stipend was meant by the donor
for the first priest alone. There is tacit condition which
requires the reading of the stipulated Mass as soon as possible.
According to the common opinion of moral theologians, a
postponement of two months is in less urgent cases admissible,
even though no lawful impediment can be brought forward. Should,
however, a priest postpone a Mass for a happy delivery until
after the event, he is bound to return the stipends. However,
since all these precepts have been imposed solely in the
interests of the stipend-giver, it is evident that he enjoys the
right of sanctioning all unusual delays.
(d) To the kindred question of "mass-foundations" the Church
has, in the interests of the founder and in her high regard for
the Holy Sacrifice, devoted the same anxious care as in the case
of stipends. Mass-foundations (fundationes misssarum) are fixed
bequests of funds or real property, the interest or income from
which is to procure for ever the celebration of Mass for the
founder or according to his intentions. Apart from
anniversaries, foundations of Masses are divided, accordlng to
the testamentary arrangement of the testator, into monthly,
weekly, and daily foundations. As ecclesiastical property,
mass-foundations are subject to the administration of the
ecclesiastical authorities, especially of the diocesan bishop,
who must grant hls permission for the acceptance of such and
must appoint for them the lowest rate. Only when episcopal
approval has been secured can the foundation be regarded as
completed; thenceforth it is unalterable for ever. In places
where the acquirement of ecclesiastical property is subject to
the approval of the State (e.g. in Austria), the establishment
of a mass-foundation must also be submitted to the secular
authorities. The declared wishes of the founder are sacred and
decisive as to the manner of fulfillment. Should no special
intention be mentioned in the deed of foundation, the Mass must
be applied for the founder himself (S.C.C., I8 March, 1668). To
secure punctuality in the execution of the foundation, Innocent
XII ordered in 1697 that a list of the mass-foundations,
arranged according to the months, be kept in each church
possessing such endowments. The administrators of pious
foundations are bound under pain of mortal sin to forward to the
bishop at the end of each year a list of all founded Masses left
uncelebrated together with the money therefor (S.C.C., 25 May,
18).
The celebrant of a founded Mass is entitled to the full amount
of the foundation, unless it is evident from the circumstances
of the foundation or from the wording of the deed that an
exception is justifiable. Such is the case when the foundation
serves also as the endowment of a benefice, and consequently in
such a case the beneficiary is bound to pay his substitute only
the regular tax (S.C.C., 25 July, 1874). Without urgent reason,
founded Masses may not be celebrated in churches (or on altars)
other than those stipulated by the foundation. Permanent
transference of such Masses is reserved to the pope, but in
isolated instances the dispensation of the bishop suffices (cf.
Council of Trent, Sess. XXI de ref.; Sess. XXV de ref.). The
unavoidable loss of the income of a foundation puts an end to
all obligations connected with it. A serious diminution of the
foundation capital, owing to the depreciation of money or
property in value, also the necessary increase of the mass-tax,
scarcity of priests, poverty of a church or of the clergy may
constiutute just grounds for the reduction of the number of
Masses, since it may be reasonably presumed that the deceased
founder would not under such difficult circumstance insist upon
the obligation. On 21 June, 1625, the right of reduction, which
the Council of Trent had conferred on bishops, abbots, and the
generals of religious orders, was again reserved by Urban VIII
to the Holy See.
2. Precepts to secure the Worthiness of the Celebrant
Although, as declared by the Council of Trent (Sess. XXII, cap.
i), the venerable, pure, and sublime Sacrifice of the God-man
"cannot be stained by any unworthiness or impiety of the
celebrant", still ecclesiastical legislation has long regarded
it as a matter of special concern that priests should fit
themselves for the celebration of the Holy Sacrifice by the
cultivation of integrity, purity of heart, and other qualities
of a personal nature.
(a) In the first place it may be asked: Who may celebrate Mass?
Since for the validity of the sacrifice the office of a special
priesthood is essential, it is clear, to begin with, that only
bishops and priests (not deacons) are qualified to offer up the
Holy Sacrifice (see Eucharist). The fact that even at the
beginning of the second century the regular officiator at the
Eucharistic celebration seems to have been the bishop will be
more readily understood when we remember that at this early
period there was no strict distinction between the offices of
bishop and priest. Like the "Didache" (xv), Clement of Rome (Ad
Cor., xl-xlii) speaks only of the bishop and his deacon in
connection with the sacrifice. Ignatius of Antioch, indeed, who
bears irrefutable testimony to the existence of the three
divisions of the hierarchy -- bishop (episkopos), priests
(presbyteroi) and deacons (diakonoi) -- confines to the bishop
the privilege of celebrating thanksgiving Divine Service when he
says: "It is unlawful to baptize or to hold the agape without
the bishop." The "Canones Hippolyti", composed probably about
the end of the second century, first contain the regulation
(can. xxxii): "If, in the absence of the bishop, a priest be at
hand, all shall devolve upon him, and he shall be honoured as
the bishop is honoured. "Subsequent tradition recognizes no
other celebrant of the Mystery of the Eucharist than the bishops
and priests, who are validly ordained "according to the keys of
the Church," (secundum claves Ecclesiae). (Cf. Lateran IV, cap.
"Firmiter" in Denzinger, n. 430.)
But the Church demands still more by insisting also on the
personal moral worthiness of the celebrant. This connotes not
alone freedom from all ecclesiastical censures (excommunication,
suspension, interdict), but also a becoming preparation of the
soul and body of the priest before he approaches the altar. To
celebrate in the state of mortal sin has always been regarded by
the Church as an infamous sacrifice (cf. I Cor., xi, 27 sqq.).
For the worthy (not for the valid) celebration of the Mass it
is, therefore, especially required that the celebrant be in the
state of grace. To place him in this condition, the awakening of
perfect sorrow is no longer sufficient since the Council of
Trent (Sess. XIII, cap. vii in Denzinger, n. 880), for there is
a strict eccleciastical precept that the reaction of the
Sacrament of Penance must precede the celebration of Mass. This
rule applies to all priests, even when they are bound by their
office (ex officio) to read Mass, e.g. on Sundays for their
parishioners. Only in instances when no confessor can be
procured, may they content themselves with reciting an act of
perfect sorrow (contritio), and they then incur the obligation
of going to confession "as early as possible" (quam primum),
which in canon law, signifies within three days at furthest. In
addition to the pious preparation for the Mass (accessus), there
is prescribed a correspondingly long thanksgiving after Mass
(recessus), whose length is fixed by moral theologians between
fifteen minutes and half an hour, although in this connection
the particular official engagements of the priest must be
considered. As regards the length of the Mass itself, the
duration is naturally variable, according as a Solemn High Mass
is sung or a Low Mass celebrated. To perform worthily all the
ceremonies and pronounce clearly all the prayers in Low Mass
requires on an average about half an hour. Moral theologians
justly declare that the scandalous haste necessary to finish
Mass in less than a quarter of an hour is impossible without
grievous sin.
With regard to the more immediate preparation of the body,
custom has declared from time immemorial, and positive canon law
since the Council of Constance (1415), that the faithful, when
receiving the Sacrament of Altar, and priests, when celebrating
the Holy Sacrifice, must be fasting (jejunium naturale) which
means that they must have partaken of no food or drink
whatsoever from midnight. Midnight begins with the first stroke
of the hour. In calculating the hour, the so-called "mean time"
(or local time) must be used: according to a recent decision
(S.C.C., 12 July, 1893), Central-European time may be also
employed, and, in North America, "zone time". The movement
recently begun among the German clergy, favouring a mitigation
of the strict regulation for weak or overworked priests with the
obligation of duplicating, has serious objections, since a
general relaxation of the ancient strictness might easily result
in lessening respect for the Blessed Sacrament and in a harmful
reaction among thoughtless members of the laity. The granting of
mitigations in general or in exceptional cases belongs to the
Holy See alone. To keep away from the altar irreverent
adventurers and unworthy priests, the Council of Trent (Sess.
XXIII, de ref.) issued the decree, made much more stringent in
later times, that an unknown priest without the Celebret may not
be allowed to say Mass in any church.
(b) A second question may be asked: "Who must say Mass?" In the
first place, if this question be considered identical with the
enquiry as to whether a general obligation of Divine Law binds
every priest by reason of his ordination, the old Scholastics
are divided in opinion. St. Thomas, Durandus, Paludanus, and
Anthony of Bologna certainly maintained the existence of such an
obligation; on the other hand, Richard of St. Victor, Alexander
of Hales, Bonaventure, Gabriel Biel, and Cardinal Cajetan
declared for the opposite view. Canon law teaches nothing on the
subject. In the absence of a decision, Suarez (De Euchar., disp.
lxxx, sect. 1, n. 4) believes that one who conforms to the
negative view, may be declared free from grievous sin. Of the
ancient hermits we know that they did not celebrate the Holy
Sacrifice in the desert, and St. Ignatius Loyola, guided by high
motives, abstained for a whole year from celebrating. Cardinal
De Lugo (De Euchar., disp. xx, sect. 1, n. 13) takes a middle
course, by adopting theoretically the milder opinion, while
declaring that, in practice, omission through lukewarmness and
neglect may, on account of the scandal caused, easily amount to
mortal sin. This consideration explains the teaching of the
moral theologians that every priest is bound under pain of
mortal sin to celebrate at least a few times each year (e.g. at
Easter, Pentecost, Christmas, the Epiphany). The obligation of
hearing Mass on all Sundays and holy days of obligation is of
course not abrogated for such priests. The spirit of the Church
demands -- and it is today the practically universal custom --
that a priest should celebrate daily, unless he prefers to omit
his Mass occasionally through motives of reverence.
Until far into the Middle Ages it was left to the discretion of
the priest, to his personal devotion and his zeal for souls,
whether he should read more than one Mass on the same day. But
since the twelfth century canon law declares that he must in
general content himself with one daily Mass, and the synods of
the thirteenth century allow, even in case of necessity, at most
a duplication (see Bination). In the course of time this
privilege of celebrating the Holy Sacrifice twice on the same
day was more and more curtailed. According to the existing law,
duplication is allowed, under special conditions, only on
Sundays and holy days, and then only in the interests of the
faithful, that they may be enabled to fulfil their obligation of
hearing Mass. For the feast of Christmas alone have priests
universally been allowed to retain the privilege of three
Masses, in Spain and Portugal this privilege was extended to All
Souls' Day (2 Nov.) by special Indult of Benedict XIV (1746).
Such customs are unknown in the East.
This general obligation of a priest to celebrate Mass must not
be confounded with the special obligation which results from the
acceptance of a Mass-stipend (obligatio ex stipendio) or from
the cure of souls (obligatio ex cura animarum). Concerning the
former sufficient has been already said. As regards the claims
of the cure of souls, the obligation of Divine Law that parish
priests and administrators of a parish should from time to time
celebrate Mass for their parishioners, arises from the relations
of pastor and flock. The Council of Trent (Sess. XXIII, de ref.)
has specified this duty of application more closely, by
directing that the parish priest should especially apply the
Mass, for which no stipend may be taken, for his flock on all
Sundays and holy days (cf. Benedict XIX, "Cum semper oblatas",
19 Aug., 1744). The obligation to apply the Mass pro populo
extends also to the holy days abrogated by the Bull of Urban
VIII, "Universa per orbem", of 13 Sept., 1642; for even today
these remain "canonically fixed feast days", although the
faithful are dispensed from the obligation of hearing Mass and
may engage in servile works. The same obligation of applying the
Mass falls likewise on bishops, as pastors of their dioceses,
and on those abbots who exercize over clergy and people a
quasi-episcopal jurisdiction. Titular bishops alone are
escepted, although even in their case the application is to be
desired (cf. Leo XIII, "In supremacy, 10 June, 1882). As the
obligation itself is not only personal, but also real, the
application must, in case of an impediment arising either be
made soon afterwards, or be effected through a substitute, who
has a right to a mass stipend as regulated by the tax.
Concerning this whole question, see Heuser, "Die Verpflichtung
der Pfarrer, die hl. Messe fur die Gemeinde zu applicieren"
(Duesseldorf 1850).
(c) For the sake of completeness a third and last question must
te touched on in this section: For whom may Mass be celebrated?
In general the answer may be given: For all those and for those
only, who are fitted to participate in the fruits of the Mass as
an impetratory, propitiatory, and satisfactory sacrifice. From
this as immediately derived the rule that Mass may not be said
for the damned in Hell or the blessed in Heaven, since they are
incapable of receiving the fruits of the Mass; for the same
reason children who die unbaptized are excluded from the
benefits of the Mass. Thus, there remain as the possible
participants only the living on earth and the poor souls in
purgatory (cf. Trent, Sess. XXII, can. iii; Sess. XXV, decret.
de purgat.). Partly out of her great veneration of the
Sacrifice, however, and partly to avoid scandal, the Church has
surrounded with certain conditions, which priests are bound in
obedience to observe, the application of Mass for certain
classes of the living and dead. The first class are
non-tolerated excommunicated persons, who are to be avoided by
the faithful (excommunicati vitandi). Although, according to
various authors, the priest is not forbidden to offer up Mass
for such unhappy persons in private and with a merely mental
intention, still to announce publicly such a Mass or to insert
the name of the excommunicated person in the prayers, even
though he may be in the state of grace owing to perfect sorrow
or may have died truly repentant, would be a "communicatio in
divinis", and is strictly forbidden under penalty of
excommunication (cf. C. 28, de sent. excomm., V, t. 39). It is
likewise forbidden to offer the Mass publicly and solemnly for
deceased non-Catholics, even though they were princes (Innoc.
III C. 12, X 1. 3, tit. 28). On the other hand it is allowed, in
consideration of the welfare of the state, to celebrate for a
non-Catholic living ruler even a public Solemn Mass. For living
heretics and schismatics also for the Jews, Turks, and heathens,
Mass may be privately applied (and even a stipend taken) with
the object of procuring for them the grace of conversion to the
true Faith. For a deceased heretic the private and hypothetical
application of the Mass is allowed only when the priest has good
grounds for believing that the deceased held his error in good
faith (bona fide. Cf. S.C. Officii, 7 April, 1875). To celebrate
Mass privately for deceased catechumens is permissible, since we
may assume that they are already justified by their desire of
Baptism and are in purgatory. In like manner Mass may be
celebrated privately for the souls of deceased Jews and
heathens, who have led an upright life, since the sacrifice is
intended to benefit all who are in purgatory. For further
details see Goepfert, "Moraltheologie", III (5th ed., Paderborn,
1906).
J. POHLE
Massa Candida
Massa Candida
Under the date 24 August, the "Martyrologium Romanum" records
this commemoration:
At Carthage, of three hundred holy martyrs in the time of Valerian
and Gallienus. Among other torments, the governor ordering a
limekiln to be lighted and live coals with incense to be set near
by, said to these confessors of the Faith: "Choose whether you will
offer incense to Jupiter or be thrown down into lime." And they,
armed with faith, confessing Christ, the Son of God, with one swift
impulse hurled themselves into the fire, where in the fumes of the
burning lime, they were reduced to a powder. Hence this band of
blessed ones in white raiment have been held worthy of the name,
White Mass.
The date of this event may be placed between A.D. 253, when
Gallienus was associated with his father in the imperial office
and A.D. 260 when Valerian was entrapped and made prisoner by
Sapor, King of Persia. As to the exact place, St. Augustine
[Ser. cccvi (al. cxii), 2] calls these martyrs the "White Mass
of Utica", indicating that there they were specially
commemorated. Utica was only 25 miles from the city of Carthage,
which was the capital of a thickly populated district, and the
three hundred may have been brought from Utica to be judged by
the procurator (Galerius Maximus).
The fame of the Massa Candida has been perpetuated chiefly
through two early references to them: that of St. Augustine, and
that of the poet Prudentius (q.v.). The latter, in the
thirteenth hymn of his peri stephanon collection, has a dozen
lines describing "the pit dug in the midst of the plain, filled
nearly to the brim with lime that emitted choking vapours", how
the "stones vomit fire, and the snowy dust burns." After telling
how they faced this ordeal, he concludes: "Whiteness [ candor]
possesses their bodies; purity [ candor] bears their minds [or,
souls] to heaven. Hence it [the "head-long swarm" to which the
poet has referred in a preceding line] has merited to be forever
called the Massa Candida." Both St. Augustine and Prudentius
were at the height of their activity before the end of the
fourth century. Moreover, St. Augustine was a native and a
resident of this same Province of Africa, while Prudentius was a
Spaniard. It is natural to suppose that the glorious tale of the
three hundred of Carthage had become familiar to both writers
through a fresh and vivid tradition -- no older than the
traditions of the Civil War now are in, say, the American South.
It is not even probable that either of them originated the
metaphor under which the martyrs of the limekiln have been known
to later generation: the name Massa Candida had, most likely
been long in use among the faithful of Africa and Spain. As
Christians, they would have been reminded of Apoc., vii, 13 and
14, by every commemoration of a martyrdom; as Romans -- at least
in language and habit of thought -- they were aware that
candidates (candidati) for office were said to have been so
called in Republican Rome from the custom of whitening the toga
with chalk or lime (calx) when canvassing for votes. Given the
Apocalyptic image and the Latin etymology (candor -- candidus --
candidatus; cf. in the "Te Deum", "Candidatus martyrum
exercitus"), it was almost inevitable that this united body of
witnesses for Christ, together winning their heavenly white
raiment in the incandescent lime, which reduced their bodies to
a homogeneous mass, should, by the peculiar form of their agony,
have suggested this name to the African and Spanish Christians.
(For the casuistry of the self-destruction of the Massa Candida,
see SUICIDE.)
E. MACPERSON
Massa Carrara
Massa Carrara
DIOCESE OF MASSA CARRARA (MASSENSIS).
Diocese in Central Italy (Lunigiana and Garfagnana). The city is
located on the Frigido, in a district rich in various mines but
especially famous for its pure white marble, which the Romans
preferred to those of Paros and Pentelius. Massa Carrara is the
"Mansio ad Taberna Frigida" of the "Tabula Peutingeriana". In
the ninth century it belonged to the bishops of Luni, and was
confirmed to them by Otto I and by Frederick Barbarossa, though
really at that time subject to the Malaspina, counts of
Lunigiana. It passed from Lucca to Pisa, was held by the
Visconti and the Fieschi, again by Lucca, and was later a free
commune under the protectorate of Florence. In 1434 it took the
marquis Antonio Alberico Malaspina for its lord; in 1548 the
marquisate passed to the House of Cybo, through the marriage of
Lorenzo of that name with Riccarda Malaspina. In 1568, Carrara
became a principality, and in 1664 a duchy. The most famous
prince of the house of Cybo was Alberico I, who endowed his
little state with a model code of law. The daughter of Alderamo,
the last of the Cybos, married Rinaldo Ercole d'Este, and by
this marriage the duchy became united with that of Modena; in
1806 it was given to Elisa Bacchiochi, and in 1814 to Maria
Beatrice, daughter of Rinaldo Ercole, at whose death the duchy
returned to Modena. The name of Carrara comes from Carraria, a
stone quarry. An academy of sculpture founded by Duchess Maria
Teresa (1741) has its seat at Carrara in the old but magnificent
ducal palace. The fine cathedral dates from 1300. Carrara is the
birthplace of the sculptors Tacca, Baratta, Finelli, and
Tenerani, and of the statesman Pellegrino Rossi. The see was
created in 1822 at the instance of Duchess Maria Beatrice, and
its first bishop was Francesco Maria Zappi; it was then
suffragen of Pisa, but since 1855 has been suffragen of Modena.
The sanctuary of Santa Maria dei Quercioli, founded in 1832, is
in the Diocese of Carrera. The latter has 213 parishes, 155,400
inhabitants, one religious house of men, seven of women, and
four educational institutes for male students, and as many for
girls.
CAPPELLITTI, Le Chiese d'Italia, SV (Venice, 1857); FARSETTI,
Ragionamento storico intorno alla citta de Modena; VIANI,
Memorie della famiglia Cybo.
U. BENIGNI
Massachusetts
Massachusetts
One of the thirteen original United States of America. The
Commonwealth of Massachusetts covers part of the territory
originally granted to the Plymouth Company of England. It grew
out of the consolidation (in 1692) of the two original colonies,
Plymouth and Massachusetts Bay. The settlement at Plymouth began
with the landing of the Pilgrims, 22 December 1620; the Colony
of Massachusetts Bay was established under John Endicott at
Salem in 1628. The royal province created by this ocnsolidation
included also the District of Maine and so remained until the
present state of Maine was set off from Massachusetts by
Congress, 3 March 1820. No authentic and complete survey of the
State of Massachusetts exists, but it is generally believed to
include an area of about 8040 square miles, with a population of
rather more than three millions. Of this number 1,373,752 are
Catholics, distributed among the three Dioceses of Boston (the
Archdiocese), Fall River, and Springfield, which are the actual
ecclestical divisions of the state. Classified by nationalities,
this Catholic population comprises more than 7000 Germans,
50,000 Portuguese, 100,000 Italians 150,000 French Canadians,
10,000 Lituanians, 3000 Syrians, 25,000 Poles, 1000 Negroes, 81
Chinese, 3000 Bravas, the remainder--more than 1,000,000--being
principally Irish or of Irish parentage.
I. COLONIAL HISTORY
A. Settlement
The explorations and settlements of the Northmen upon the shores
of Massachusetts, the voyages of the Cabots, the temporary
settlement (1602) of the Gosnold party on one of the Elizabeth
Islands of Buzzard's Bay, and the explorations and the mapping
of the New England coast by Captain John Smith are usually
passed over as more or less conjectural. The undisputed history
of Massachusetts begins with the arrival of the "Mayflower" in
December, 1620. Nevertheless the due appreciation of these
precious events gives a ready and logical explanation of many
acts, customs and laws of the founders of this commonwealth
which, in general, are imperfectly understood. The early maps
(1582) mark the present territory of New England under the name
"Norumbega", and show that the coast had been visited by
Christian mariners--whether by fishermen in search of the
fisheries set forth by Cabot, or by the daring Drakes,
Frosibers, and Hawkinses of Elizabeth's reign, does not seem
clear. It is an accepted fact that, when Gosnold set out in
1602, there was not a single English settlement on the
Continent. France did not acknowledge the claim of England over
the whole territory. A French colony had been established where
now is northern Virginia, under the name of "New France." This
was after Verazzano's expedition made by order of Francis I. A
French explorer, too, the Huguenot Sieur de Monts, had been to
Canada, and knew much about the resources of that country,
especially the fur trade of the Indian tribes. Henry IV had
given De Monts a patent to all the country now included in New
England, also a monopoly of the fur trade. All this is
important, because it entered into the conditions of the early
permanent settlement here.
For a quarter of a century prior to the coming of the Pilgrims,
the French and the Dutch resented the encroachments of the
English. "The Great Patent for New England", of 1620, granted to
Gorges and his forty associates, has been called a "despotic as
well as a gigantic commerical monopoly." This grant included the
New netherlands of the Dutch, the French Acadia and indeed,
nearly all the present inhabited British possessions in North
America, besides all New England, the State of New York, half of
New Jersey, nearly all of Pennsylvania, and the country to the
west--in short, all the territory from the fortieth degree of
north latitude to the forty-eighth and from the Atlantic to the
Pacific Ocean. The English increased the enmity of the French by
destroying the Catholic settlements of St.-Croix and at
Port-Royal, and had aroused the suspicion and hostility of the
Indians by the treachery of Hunt, an act described by Mather as
"one which constrained the English to suspend their trade and
abandon their prospects of a settlement in New England."
The religious conditions were no less ominous for the Pilgrims.
At the opening of the sixteenth century, all Christian Europe,
with slight exceptions, was Catholic and loyal to the papacy; at
the close of that century England herself was the mother of
three antipapacy sects: the State Church and its two divisions;
the Nonconformists, or Puritans; and the Separatists, or
Pilgrims. At the time of the sailing of the "Mayflower", the
Puritans had become as fully disenfranchised by the Anglican
Church as the Pilgrims had estranged themselves from both; each
distrusted the others; all three hated the Church of Rome.
Gorges and his associated had found the French and their Jesuit
missionaries a stumbling-block in the way of securing
fur-trading privileges from the Indians. The alleged gold and
copper mines of Smith and of Gosnold were now regarded as myths;
unless something could be done at once, the opportunities
offered by their charter monopoly would be worthless. A
permanent English settlement in America was the only sure way of
preventing the French and the Dutch from acquiring the Virginia
territory. The Gorges company knew of the cherished hopes of the
Pilgrims to find a home away from their English persecutors,
and, after much chicanery on the part of the promoters, the
company agreed to found a home for the Pilgrims in the new
world. The articles of agreement were wholly commercial, and the
"Mayflower" sailed for Virginia. History differs in its
interpretation of the end of that voyage, but all agree that the
Pilgrims, in landing at Plymouth, 22 December, 1620, were
outside any jurisdiction of their patrons, the Virginia Company.
The Pilgrims themselves recognized their difficulty, and the
famous "Compact" was adopted, before landing, as a basis of
government by mutual agreement. Gorges protected his company's
investment by obtaining from James I the new charter of 1620
which controlled, on a commercial basis, all religious
colonization in America. The struggle of race against, race,
tribe against tribe, neighbour against neighbour were all
encouraged so long as the warfare brought gain to the mercenary
adventurers at home. The Pilgrims, finding themselves deserted
by the instigators of this ill-feeling, were forced by the law
of self-preservation to continue religious intolerance and the
extermination of the Indians. Thus it is that we find the laws,
the customs and the manners of these first English settlers so
interwoven with the religio-commercial principle. The coming of
the Puritans, in 1629-30, added the factor of politics, which
resulted in establishing in America the very thing against which
these "Purists" had fought at home, namely, the union of Church
and State. Here, again, at Puritan Salem, Gorges and Mason
cloaked their commercialism under religion, as the accounts of
La Tour and Winslow attest, and so effective were their
machinations that, as early as 1635, Endicott's zeal had not
left a set of the king's colours intact with the red cross
thereon -- that relic of popery insufferable in a Puritan
community.
B. Colonial Legislation
The legality of the early acts of the colonists depends, to a
great degree, on whether the charters granted to the two
colonies were for the purpose of instituting a corporation for
trading purposes, or whether they are regarded as constitutions
and foundations af a government. This much-controversial point
has never been settled satisfactorily. The repeated demands from
the king, often with threat of prosecution, for the return of
the charters were ignored, so that, until 1684, the colony was
practically a free state, independent of England, and professing
little, if any, loyalty. Judging from the correspondence, it is
more than probable that the intention of the Crown in granting
the charter was that the corporation should have a local
habitation in England, and it is equally evident that the colony
did not possess the right to make its own laws. It is plainly
stated, in the patent granted to the Puritans, who the governor
and other officials of the colony should be, showing thereby
that the Crown retained the right of governing. A new charter
was granted in 1692 covering Massachusetts, Plymouth, Maine,
Nova Scotia, and the intervening territory, entitled "The
Province of Massachusetts Bay in New England"; nevertheless it
was not until the Treaty of Utrecht, in 1713, that the
proceedings on the part of the home Government, to assert the
Crown's rights, abated notably. During the half-century in which
the Puritans ignored the terms of their charter, and made laws
in accordance with their own selfish interests, many of those
acts ocurred which history has since condemned. At the first
meeting of the general Court held 30 August, 1630, it was voted
to build a house for the minister and maintain it at the state's
expense--an act of described by Benedict, in his History of the
Baptists, as the first dangerous act performed by the rulers of
this incipent government which led to innumerable evils,
hardships, and privations to all who had the misfortune to
dissent from the ruling power in after times.--The Viper in
Embryo; here was an importation and establishment, in the outset
of the settlement, of the odious doctrine of Church and State
which had thrown empires into convulsions, had caused rivers of
blood to be shed, had crowded prisons with innocent victims, and
had driven the Pilgrims (he means Puritans) themselves who were
now engaged in the mistaken legislation, from all that was dear
in their native homes. This union of Church and State controlled
the electorate and citizenship of the colony, made the school a
synonym of both, excluded Catholic priests and prohibited the
entrance of Jesuits, condemned witches to death, banished Roger
Williams and the Quakers, established the pillory, and in other
ways left to posterity many chapters of uncharitableness
intolerance, and curelty. After the War of Independence, the old
colonial government took a definite constitutional form under
the Union, in 1780, and the first General Court of the sovereign
State of Massachusetts convened in October of that year. This
constitution was revised in 1820.
C. Catholic Colonization
The Plymouth and Massachusetts Bay Colonies were composed
principally of English. Near the close of the reign of Charles
I, however, the forced emigration of the Irish brought many of
that race to these shores; their number is hard to estimate,
first, because the law made it obligatory that all sailings must
take place from English ports, so that there are no records of
those who came from Ireland with English sailing registry;
secondly, because the law, under heavy penalties, obliged all
Irishmen in certain towns of Ireland to take English
surnames--the names of some small town, of a colour, of a
particular trade or office, or of a certain art or craft.
Children in Ireland were separated forcibly from their parents
and under new names sent into the colonies. Men and women, from
Cork and its vicinity, were openly sold into slavery for
America. Connaught, which was nine-tenths Catholic, was
depopulated. The frequently published statement in justification
of Cromwell's persecution, that the victimes of this white
slave-traffic were criminals, finds no corroboration in the
existence of a single penal colony in this country. In 1634 the
General Court of Massachusetts Bay also granted land for an
irish settlement on the banks of the Merrimac River. (See
ARCHDIOCESE OF BOSTON; IRISH IN COUNTRIES OTHER THAN IRELAND.)
II. MODERN MASSACHUSETTS
A. Statistics of Population
In 1630 the population of Plymouth and Massachusetts Colonies
was estimated at 8000 white people; in 1650, at 16,000; in 1700,
at 70,000; while in 1750 it was placed at 220,000. In 1790 the
population of the State of Massacusetts was 378, 787; in 1905 it
was 3,003,680. The density of population increased from 47 to
the square mile, in 1790, to 373, in 1905. In 1790 over
nine-tenths of the population lived in rural communities, while
in 1905 less than one-fourth (22.26 per cent) of the total
populatiion lived in communities of 8000 or less. The great tide
of Irish immigration began in 1847. This has since conspicously
modified the population of Massachusetts. In 1905 the ratio of
increase in the native and in the foreign-born of the population
was 6.46 per cent and 8.47 per cent respectively; the number of
native-born in the total population being 2, 085,636, and that
of the foreign-born being 918,044, an increase of the latter of
459.7 per cent since 1850. This foreign-born population is
mostly (83.91 per cent) in cities and towns with populations of
more than 8000. Ireland has furnished 25.75 per cent of the
total foreign-born. Canada (exclusive of New Brunswick, Nova
Scotia, and prince Edward Island) is second, with a population
of 12.88 per cent of the total foreign-born population. At
present Russia supplies the largest increase in foreign-born,
having risen fron one-half of one per cent, in 1885, to 6.43 per
cent, in 1905. Italy's contribution in the same period rose from
76 per cent to 5.51 per cent. Almost sixty per cent of the
entire population of Massachusetts is now of foreign parentage.
In the cities of Fall River and Lawrence it runs as high as
four-fifths of the entire population, while in Holyoke, Lowell,
and Chicopee it is more than three-fourths. In Boston the
population of foreign parentage forms 60.03 per cent, while at
New Bedford it rises to 72.34 per cent, at Worcester to 65.64
percent, at Cambridge to 65.16 per cent, at Woburn to 63.63 per
cent, and at Salem to 61.10 per cent. The Greeks have increased
in Massachusetts 1242.7 per cent since 1895, a greater rapidity
of increase than all peoples of foreign parentage in the
population. Austria comes next, and italy is third. In the city
of Boston, Irish parentage gives 174,770 out of a total census
of 410,960 persons of foreign parentage, and this nationality
predominates in every ward except the eighth, where Russian
parentage stands first. The transformation in the racial and
national population in Massachusetts has likewise changed the
religious prominence of the various denominations. The present
order of denominations in this state is: Catholics, 69.2 per
cent; Congregationalist, 7.6 per cent, Baptists, 5.2 per cent;
Methodists, 4.2 per cent; Protestant Episcopalians, 3.3 per
cent.
B. Economic Conditions
Massachusetts was not favoured by nature for an agricultural
centre. The soil is sandy in the level areas and clayey in the
hill sections. The valleys of the streams are rich in soil
favourable to vegetable- and fruit-production. The early
industries were cod and mackerel fisheries. At the outbreak of
the Revolutiion, commerce was the most profitable occupation,
and after the declaration of peace, Massachusetts sent its ships
to all parts of the world. The European wars helped this
commerce greatly until the War of 1812, with its embargo and
non-intercourse laws, which forced the American vessels to stay
at home. It had its recompense however, in the birth of
manufactures, an industry attempted as early as 1631 and 1644
but subsequently suppressed by the mother country. The first
cotton mill was established at Beverly in 1787. It was not until
1840, however, that the cotton and leather industries attained
permanent leadership. According to the published statistics of
1908, Massachusetts had 6044 manufacturing establishments, with
a yearly product valued at $1,172,808,782. The boot and shoe
industry was the leading industry of the State, with a yearly
production of $213,506,562. This industry produced 18.2 per cent
of the product value of the State, and one-half of all the
product in this line in the United States. The cotton
manufactures were 13.51 per cent of the State's total product.
The total capital devoted to production in the state was
$717,787,955. More than 480,000 wage-earners were employed
(323,308 males; 156,826 females) in the various manufacturing
industries of the State, the two leading industries employing
35.22 per cent of the aggregate average number of all employees.
The average yearly earning for each operative is $501.71. The
Massachusetts laws prohibit more than fifty-eight hours weekly
employment in mercantile establishments, and limit the day's
labour to ten hours. No woman or minor can be employed for
purposes of manufacturing between the hours of ten o'clock p.m.
and six o'clock a.m.; no minor under eighteen years and no woman
can be employed in any textile factory between six o'clock p.m.
and six o'clock a.m.; no child under fourteen years of age can
be employed during the hours when the public schools are in
session, nor between seven o'clock p.m. and six o'clock a.m.
Children under fourteen years, and children over fourteen years
and under sixteen years, who cannot read at sight and write
legible simple sentences in the English language, shall be
permitted to work on Saturdays between six o'clock a.m. and
seven o'clock p.m. only. Transportation facilities have kept
pace with the growth of the industries. Two main railroad
systems connect with the West, and, by means of the interstate
branches, these connect with all the leading industrial cities.
One general railroad system with its subdivisions connects witht
he South, via New York. The means of transportation by water are
no less complete thant hose by rail, and offer every facility to
bring coal and other supplies of the world into connection with
the various railroad terminals for distribution.
C. Education
All education in Massachusetts was at first religious. We read
of the establishment in 1636 of Harvard College, "lest an
illiterate ministry might be left to the churches," and "to
provide for the instruction of the people in piety, morality,
and learning." The union of Church and State was accepted, and
the General Court agreed to give 400 pounds towards the
establishment of the college. Six years later it was resolved,
"taking into consideration the great neglect of many parents and
guardians in training up their children in learning and labor
and other employment which may be profitable to the Commonwealth
. . . that chosen men in every town are to redress this evil,
are to have power to take account of parents, masters, and of
their children, especially of their ability to read and
understand the principles of religion and the capital laws of
the country." This was the origin of compulsory education in
Massacusetts. In 1647 every town was ordered, under penalty of a
fine, to build and support a school for the double purpose of
religious instruction and of citizenship; every large town of
one hundred families to build a grammar school to fit the youths
for the university. Thus was established the common free school.
The union of Church and State was as pronounced in education as
in civic affairs. When the grants from the
legislature--colonial, provincial, and state--failed to meet the
expenses of salaries and maintenance, lotteries were employed.
The last grant to Harvard College from the public treasury was
in 1814. Congregationalism had controlled education and
legislation, and the corporation of Harvard College was limited
to state officials and a specified number of Congregational
clergymen. It was not until 1843 that other than
Congregationalists were eligible for election as overseers of
the college.
The original system of state education, as outlined above, was
uninterrupted until the close of the Revolution. The burdens of
the war, with its poverty and taxation, reduced the "grammar
school" to a very low standard. Men of ability found a more
lucrative occupation than teaching. Private schools sprang into
existence about this time, and the legacies of Dummer, Philips,
Williston, and others made their foundations the prparatory
schools for Harvard. In 1789 the legislature passed an act
substituting six months for the constant instruction provided
for towns of fifty families; and the law required a
grammar-teacher of determined qualifications for towns of 200
families, instead of the similar requirements for all towns of
half that population. In 1797 the Legislature formally adopted
all the incorporated academies as public state schools, and thus
denominational education almost entirely replaced the grammar
schools founded in 1647. The act of 1789 was repealed in 1824.
This aided greatly the private denominational schools and gave
to them a false and fictious social, intellectual, and moral
standing. The American Institute of Instruction was formed in
1830 at Boston as a protest against the low standard of teaching
in the public schools. Three years prior to this (1827) the
Legislature had established the State Board of Education, which
remained unchanged in form until 1909. That same year was made
historic by the Legislature voting to make it unlawful to use
the common schools, or to teach anything in the schools, in
order to turn the children to a belief in any particular sect.
This was the first show of strength Unitarianism had manifestd
in Massachusetts, and it had retained its control of the
educational policy of the state since that date. In 1835 the
civil authorities at Lowell authorized the establishment of
separate Catholic schools with Catholic teachers and with all
textbooks subject to the pastor's approval. The municipality
paid all the expenses except the rent of rooms. This experiment
was a great success. The general wave of religious fanaticism,
which swept the country a few years later, was responsible for
the acceptance of the referendum vote of 21, May, 1855, which
adopted the constitutional amendment that "all moneys thus
raised by taxation in town, or appropriated by the state, shall
never be appropriated to any religious sect for the maintenance
exclusively of its own schools." The Civil War resulted in a
saner view of many questions which had ben blurred by by passion
and prejudice, and in 1862 (and again in 1880) the statute law
was modiefied so that "Bible reading is required, but without
written note or oral comment; a pupil is exempt from taking part
in any such exercise if his parent or guardian so wishes; any
version is allowed, and no committee may purchase or order to be
used in any public school books calculated to favor the tenets
of any particular sect of Christians." This, in brief, is the
process by which the secularization of the public schools came
about, a complete repudiation of the law of 1642.
Massachusetts has ten state normal schools with over 2000 pupils
and a corps of 130 teachers. In the 17,566 public schools there
are 524,319 pupils with an average attendance of 92 per cent.
The proportion of teachers is 1281 male and 13, 497 female. The
total support of the public schools amounts annually to $14,
697,774. There are forty-two academies with an enrolment of over
6000 pupils, and 344 private schools with a registration of
91,772. The local annual tax for school support per chhild
between the ages of five to fifteen years is $26. The total
valuation of all schools fifteen years is $26. The total
valuation of all schools in Massachusetts is $3, 512, 557,604.
There are within the state eighteen colleges or universities,
six of them devoted to the education of women only.
Massachusetts has also eight schools of theology, three law
schools, four medical schools, two dental schools, one school of
pharmacy, and three textile schools. The only colleges in
Massachusetts (except textile schools) receiving state or
deferal subsidies are the State Agricultural Colleges and the
Massachusetts Institute of Technology, the latter receiving
both. The number of public libraries in Massachusetts exceeds
that of any other state. The list includes 2586 libraries with
10,810,974 volumes valued at $12,657,757. There are 623 reading
rooms, of which 301 are free. There are thirty schools for the
dependent and the afflicted.
The growth of the Catholic schools has been notable. Besides
Holy Cross College at Worcester, and Boston College at Boston,
there are in the Diocese of Boston seventy-nine grammar schools
and twenty-six high schools with a teaching staff of 1075
persons and an enrolment of 52,143. This represents an
investment of more than $2,700.000, a yearly interest of
$135,000. More than a third of the parishes in this diocese now
maintain parochial schools. In the Diocese of Fall River there
are over 12,000 pupils in 28 parochial schools, besides a
commercial school with 363 pupils. In the Diocese of Springfield
there are 24, 562 pupils in 56 parochial schools.
D. Laws affecting Religion and Morals
Elsewhere in this article we have traced colonial laws and
legislation. The Constitution of the United States gave
religious liberty. The State Constitution of 1780 imposed a
religious test as a qualification for office and it authorized
the legislature to tax the towns, if necessary "for the support
and maintenance of public Protestant teachers of piety,
religiion, and morality." The former law was repealed in 1821,
and the latter in 1833. Complete religious equality has existed
since the latter date. The observance of the Lord's Day is amply
safeguarded, but entertainments for charitable purposes given by
charitable or religious societies are permitted. The keeping of
open shop or engaging in work or business not for charitable
purposes is forbidden. Many of the rigid laws of colonial days
are yet unrepealed. There is no law authorizing the use of
prayer in the Legislature; custom, however, has made it a rule
to open each session with prayer. This same custom has become
the rule in opening the several sittings of the higher courts.
Catholic priests have officiated at times at the former. The
present Archbishop of Boston offered prayer at the opening of at
least one term of the Superior Court, being the first Catholic
to perform this office. The courts and the judiciary have full
power to administer oaths.
The legal holidays in Massachusetts are 22 February, 19 April
(Patriot's Day), 30 May, 4 July, the first Monday in September
(Labor Day), 12 Oct. (Columbus Day), Thanksgiving Day, and
Christmas Day. The list does not include Good Friday. The seal
of confession is not recognized by law, although in practice
sacramental confession is generally treated as a privileged
conversation. Incorporation of churches and of charitable
institutions is authorized by statute. Such organizations may
make their own laws and elect their own officers. Every
religious society so organized shall constitute a body corporate
with the powers given to corporations, body corporate with the
powers given to corporations. Section 44, chapter 36, of the
Public Statutes provide that the Roman Catholic archbishop or
bishop, the vicar-general of the diocese, and the pastor of the
church for the time being, or a majority of these, may associate
with themselves two laymen, communications of the church, may
form a body corporate, the signers of the certificate of
incorporation becoming the trustees. Such corporation may
receive, hold, and manage all real and personal property
belonging to the church, sell, transfer, hold trusts, bequests,
etc., but all property belonging to any church or parish, or
held by such a corporation, shall never exceed one hundred
thousand dollars, exclusive of church buildings. All church
property and houses of religious worship (except that part of
such houses appropriated for purposes other than religious
worship or instruction) are exempt from taxation. This exemption
extends to the property of literary, benevolent, charitable, and
scientific institutions and temperance societies; also to
legacies, cemeteries, and tombs. Clergymen are exempt from
service as constables, from jury service, and service in the
militia. Clergymen are permitted by law to have access to
prisoners after death sentence, and are among those designated
as "officials" who may be present at executions. The statutes
prohibit marriage between relatives, and recognize marriage by
civil authorities and by rabbis. The statutory grounds for
divorce recognized are adulter, impotency, desertion continued
for three consecutive years, confirmed habits of intoxication by
liquor, opium, or drugs, cruel and abusive treatment; also if
either party is sentenced for life to hard labour, or five or
more years in state prison, jail, or house of correction. The
Superior Court hears all divorce libels. After a decree of
divorce has become absolute, either party may marry again as if
the other were dead; except that the party from whom the decree
was granted shall not marry within two years. The sale of
intoxicating liquors is regulated by law. Each community, city
or town votes annually upon the question, whether or not licence
to sell liquor shall be issued in that municipality. Special
boards are appointed to regulate the conditions of such
licences. The number of licences that may be granted in each
town or city is limited to one to each thousand persons, though
Boston has a limitation of one license to five hundred of the
population. The hours of opening and closing bars are regulated
by law. Any person owning property can object to the granting of
a licence to sell intoxicating liquors within twenty-five feet
of his property. A licence cannot be granted to sell
intoxicating liquors on the same street as or within four
hundred feet of a public school.
E. Religious Libery
In the beginning Massachusetts was Puritan against the Catholic
first, against all non-conformists to their version of
established religion next. The Puritan was narrow in mind and
for the most part limited in education, a type of man swayed
easily to extremes. England was at that period intensely
anti-papal. In Massachusetts, however, the antipathy early
became racial: first against the French Catholic, later against
the Irish Catholic. This racial religious bigotry has not
disappeared wholly in Massachusetts. Within the pale of the
Church racial schisms have been instigated from time to time in
order that the defeat of Catholicism might be accomplished when
open antagonism from without failed to accomplish the end
sought. In politics it is often the effective shibboleth.
Congregationalism soon took form in the colony and as early as
1631 all except Puritans were excluded by law from the freedom
of the body politic. In 1647 the law became more specific and
excluded priests from the colony. This act was reaffirmed in
1770. Bowdoin College preserves the cross and Harvard College
the "Indian Dictionary" of Sebastian Rasle, the priest executed
under the provision of the law. In 1746 a resolution and meeting
at Faneuil Hall bear testimony that Catholics must prove, as
well as affirm, their loyalty to the colony. Washington himself
was called upon to suppress the insult of Pope Day at the siege
of Boston. Each of these events was preceded by a wave of either
French or Irish immigration, a circumstance which was repeated
in the religious fanaticism of the middle of the nineteenth
centruy. Cause and effect seem well established and too constant
to be incidental. In all the various anti-Catholic uprisings,
from colonial times to the present, there is not one instance
where the Catholics were the aggressors by word or deed: their
patience and forbearance have always been in marked contrast to
the conduct of their non-Catholic contemporaries. In every one
of the North Atlantic group of states, the Catholics now
constitute the most numerous religiious denomination. In
Massachusetts the number of the leading denominations is as
follows: Catholics 1,373,752; Congregationalists 119,196;
Baptists 80,894; Methodists, 6,498; Protestant Episcopalians
51,636, Presbyterians 8559.
F. Catholic Progress
Throughout the account of the doings among the colonists, there
are references to the coming, short stay, and departure of some
Irish priest or French Jesuit. In the newspaper account of the
departure of the French from Boston, in 1782, it is related that
the clergy and the selectmen paraded through the streets
preceded by a cross-bearer. It was some fifty years later that
the prosperity and activity of the Church aroused political
demagoguery and religious bigotry. Massachusetts, as well as new
York and Philadelphia, experienced the storm: a convent was
burned, churches were threatened, monuments to revered heroes of
the Church were razed, and cemeteries descrated. The consoling
memory, however, of this period, is that Massachusetts furnished
the Otises, the Lees, the Perkinses, Everetts, and Lorings--all
non-Catholics--whose voices and pens were enlisted heartily in
the cause of justice, toleration, and unity.
In 1843, Rhode Island and Connecticut were set off from the
original Diocese of Boston. Maine and New Hampshire, also under
the jurisdiction of Boston, were made a new diocese ten years
later, with the episcopal see at Portland. This was the period
of the great Irish immigration, and Boston received a large
quota. This new influx was, as in the previous century, looked
upon as an intrusion and the usual result followed. New England
had now become what Lowell was pleased to call "New Ireland".
This religious and racial transformation, made the necessity for
churches, academics, schools, asylums, priests, and teachers an
imperative one. The work of expansion, both material and
spiritual went forward apace. The great influx of Canadian
Catholics added much to the Catholic population, which had now
reached more than a million--souls over sixty-nine percent of
the total religious population of the state. The era was not
without its religious strife, this time within public and
charitable institutions, state and municipal. This chapter reads
like those efforts of proselytizing in the colonial days when
names of Catholic children were changed, paternity denied,
maternity falsified--all in the hope of destroying the true
religiious inheritance of the state wards. The influence of
Catholics in the governing of institutions, libraries, and
schools has since then increased somewhat. The spiritual
necessities of the vast Catholic communities are provided for
abundantly; orphans are well housed; unfortunates securely
protected; the poor greatly succoured; and the sick have the
sacraments at their very door. Schools, academies, colleges, and
convents, wherein Catholic education is given, are now within
the reach of all. The whole period of Archbishop William's
administration (1866-1907) has been appropriately called "the
brick and mortar age of the Catholic Church in New England."
(See ARCHDIOCESE OF BOSTON.)
Upon the death of Archbiship Williams, in the summer of 1907,
his coadjutor, the Most Reverend William H. O'Connell, D.D. (the
present archbiship), was promoted to the metropolitan see. This
archbiship invited the National Convention of the federation of
Catholic Societies to meet in Boston with resulting interest,
activity, and strength to that society, in which, indeed, he has
shown a special interest. To develop the solidarity of priests
and people, of races and nations, of the cultured and the
unlettered--a unity of all the interests of the Church, the
archbiship needed a free press: he purchased "The Pilot",
secured able and fearless writers and placed it at a nominal
cost within the reach of all. The dangers to the immigrant in a
new and fascination enviroment are all anticipated, and
safeguards are being strengthened daily. At the same time, the
inherited misunderstanding of Puritan Massachusetts, and the
evil machinations of those who would use religion and charity
for selfish motives or aggrandizement are still active. The
Catholic mind is aroused, however, and the battle for truth is
being waged; Catholic Massachusetts moves forward, all under one
banner--French Canadian, Italian, Pole, German, Portuguese,
Greek, Scandinavian, and Irish--each vying with the other for an
opportunity to prove his loyalty to the Church, to its priests,
and to their spiritual leader. In every diocese and in each
county well-organized branches of the Federation, exist,
temperance and church societies flourish, educational and
charitable associations are alive and active. The Church's
ablest laymen are enlisted, and all are helping mightily to
accomplish the avowed intention of the Archbishop of Boston, to
make Massachusetts the leading Catholic state in the country.
(See also CHEVERUS, JEAN LOUIS DE; FALL RIVER, DIOCESE OF;
SPRINGFIELD, DIOCESE OF.)
AUSTIN, History of Massachusetts (Boston, 1876); BANCROFT,
History of the United States, I (London, 1883-84); BARRY,
History of New England, I (Boston, 1855); Boston Town Records
(Boston, 1772); BRADFORD, History of Plymouth Plantation; DAVIS,
The New England States, III (Boston, 1897); DRAKE, The Making of
New England, 1584-1643 (New York), 1886); DWIGHT, Travels in New
England, I (New Haven, 1821), 22; EMERSON, Education in
Massachusetts, Massachusetts Historical Collection (Boston,
1869); HALE, Review of the Proceedings of the Nunnery Committee
(Boston, 1855); HARRINGTON, History of Harvard Medical School,
III (New York, 1905); Irish Historical Proceedings, II (Boston,
1899); LEARY, History of the Catholic Church in New England
States, I (Boston, 1899); Massachusetts Historical Society
Collection, 1st ser., V. (Boston, 1788); Proceedings, 2d ser.,
III (Boston, 1810) McGee, The Irish Settlers in America (Boston,
1851); PARKER, The First Charter and the Early Religious
Legislation of Massachusetts, Massachusetts Historical
Collection (1869); WALSH, The Early Irish Catholic Schools of
Lowell, Mass.,1835-1865 (Boston, 1901); IDEM, Am. Cath. Q. Rev.
(January, 1904).
THOMAS F. HARRINGTON
Guglielmo Massaia
Guglielmo Massaia
A Cardinal, born 9 June, 1809, at Piova in Piedmont, Italy; died
at Cremona, 6 August, 1889. His baptismal name was Lorenzo; that
of Guglielmo was given him when he became a religious. He was
first educated at the Collegio Reale at Asti under the care of
his elder brother Guglielmo, a canon and precentor of the
cathedral of that city. On the death of his brother he passed as
a student to the diocesan seminary; but at the age of sixteen
entered the Capuchin Franciscan Order, receiving the habit on 25
September, 1825. Immediately after his ordination to the
priesthood, he was appointed lector of theology; but even whilst
teaching he acquired some fame as a preacher and was chosen
confessor to Prince Victor Emmanuel, afterwards King of Italy,
and Ferdinand, Duke of Genoa. The royal family of Piedmont would
have nominated him on several occasions to an episcopal see, but
he strenuously opposed their project, being desirous of joining
the foreign missions of his order. He obtained his wish in 1846.
That year the Congregation of Propaganda, at the instance of the
traveller Antoine d'Abbadie, determined to establish a
Vicariate-Apostolic for the Gallas in Abyssinia. The mission was
confided to the Capuchins, and Massaia was appointed first
vicar-apostolic, and was consecrated in Rome on 24 May of that
year. On his arrival in Abyssinia he found the country in a
state of religious agitation. The heretical Coptic bishop,
Cyril, was dead and there was a movement amongst the Copts
towards union with Rome. Massaia, who had received plenary
faculties from the pope, ordained a number of native priests for
the Coptic Rite; he also obtained the appointment by the Holy
See of a vicar-apostolic for the Copts, and himself consecrated
the missionary Giustino de Jacobis to this office. But this act
aroused the enmity of the Coptic Patriarch of Egypt, who sent a
bishop of his own, Abba Salama, to Abyssinia. As a result of the
ensuing political agitation, Massaia was banished from the
country and had to flee under an assumed name. In 1850 he
visited Europe to gain a fresh band of missionaries and means to
develop his work: he had interviews with the French Minister of
Foreign Affairs in Paris, and with Lord Palmerston in London. On
his return to the Gallas he founded a large number of missions;
he also established a school at Marseilles for the education of
Galla boys whom he had freed from slavery; besides this he
composed a grammar of the Galla language which was published at
Marseilles in 1867. During his thirty-five years as a missionary
he was exiled seven times, but he always returned to his labours
with renewed vigour. However, in 1880 he was compelled by
ill-health to resign his mission. In recognition of his merit,
Leo XIII raised him to the titular Archbishopric of Stauropolis,
and on 10 November, 1884, to the dignity of cardinal of the
title of S. Vitalis. At the command of the pope he wrote an
account of his missionary labours, under the title, "I miei
trentacinque anni di missione nell' alta Etiopia", the first
volume of which was published simultaneously at Rome and Milan
in 1883, and the last in 1895. In this work he deals not only
with the progress of the mission, but with the political and
economic conditions of Abyssinia as he knew them.
MASSAIA, I miei trentacinque anni etc.; Analecta Ordinis FF.
Min. Capp., V, 291 seq.
FATHER CUTHBERT
Massa Marittima
Diocese of Massa Marittima
(MASSANA)
Massa Marittima, in the Province of Grosseto, in Tuscany, first
mentioned in the eighth century. It grew at the expense of
Populonia, an ancient city of the Etruscans, the principal port
of that people, and important on account of its iron, tin, and
copper works. Populonia was besieged by Sulla, and in Strabo's
time was already decadent; later it suffered at the hands of
Totila, of the Lombards, and in 817 of a Byzantine fleet. After
this, the bishops of Populonia abandoned the town, and in the
eleventh century, established their residence at Massa. In 1226
Massa became a commune under the protection of Pisa. In 1307 it
made an alliance with Siena, which was the cause of many wars
between the two republics that brought about the decadence of
Massa. The town has a fine cathedral. The first known Bishop of
Populonia was Atellus (about 495); another was Saint Cerbonius
(546), protector of the city, to whom Saint Gregory refers in
his Dialogues. Among the bishops of Massa were the friar Antonio
(1430), a former general of the Franciscans, and legate of
Boniface IX; Leonardo Dati (1467), author of poetic satires;
Alessandro Petrucci (1601), who embellished the cathedral and
the episcopal palace; the Camaldolese Eusebio da Ciani (1719),
who governed the diocese for fifty-one years. This see was at
first suffragan of Pisa, but since 1458 of Siena. It has 29
parishes, 68,200 inhabitants, one religious house of men and
four of women.
CAPPELLETTI, Le Chiese d'Italia, XVII (Venice, 1862).
U. BENIGNI.
Enemond Masse
Enemond Masse
One of the first Jesuits sent to New France; born at Lyons,
1574; died at Sillery, l2 May, 1646. He went to Acadia with
Father Biard, and when it was found impossible to effect any
good there, they established a new mission at the present Bar
Harbor, Maine, which was soon after destroyed by the English --
Masse being set adrift on the sea in an open boat. He succeeded
in reaching a French ship and returned to France. In 1625 he
again set sail for Canada, and remained there until the fall of
Quebec. He returned a third time in 1632, but, as he was in
advanced in age, he no longer laboured among the savages, but
lived mostly at Sillery, which he built as a reservation for the
converted Indians. A monument has recently been erected to his
honour at this place on the site of the old Jesuit Church which
stood on the bank of the St. Lawrence a short distance above
Quebec.
T.J. CAMPBELL
Bequest For Masses (Canada)
Bequests for Masses (Canada)
The law governing bequests, being concerned with "property and
civil rights", falls within the legislative competency of the
provincial legislatures, not of the Dominion Parliament. The
basic law in all the provinces is, however, not the same. Any
question concerning bequests is, therefore, one of provincial,
not Dominion law. There is no statute enacted by any of the
legislatures specially affecting bequests for Masses.
Quebec
In this province there is no question of the validity of such
bequests. The basic law is the French law as in force in the
province at the time of the cession (1759-63). Whether such
bequests were or are valid under English statutory or Common
Law, is immaterial. Under article 869 of the Civil Code a
testator may make bequests for charitable or other lawful
purposes. The freedom of the practice of the Catholic religion
being not only recognized but guaranteed, as well under the
Treaty of Cession (1763) as under the terms of the Quebec Act
(1774), and subsequent Provincial Legislation (14 & 15 Vic.,
Can., c. 175) having confirmed that freedom, a bequest for the
saying of Masses is clearly for a lawful purpose.
Ontario
In this province the law of England, as in force on 15 October,
1792, introduced "so far as it was not from local circumstances
inapplicable", under powers conferred by the statute of 1791,
which divided the old Province of Quebec into Lower and Upper
Canada, is the basic law. That Act preserved to Roman Catholics
in Upper Canada the rights as regards their religion secured to
them under the Act of 1774. The provincial legislation cited as
regards Quebec being enacted after the reunion of Upper and
Lower Canada, was also law in this province. The validity of
bequests for the saying of Masses was upheld in the case of
Elmsley and Madden (18 Grant Chan. R. 386). The court held that
the English law, as far as under it such dispositions may have
been invalid, was inapplicable under the circumstances of the
province, wherein the Catholic religion was tolerated. This case
has been accepted as settling the law.
British Columbia, Manitoba, Alberta, and Saskatchewan
In British Columbia the civil law of England, as it existed on
19 November, 1858, and in the three other of these provinces,
that law as it existed on 15 July, 1870, "so far as not from
local circumstances inapplicable", is the basic law. The Ontario
judgment above cited is in practice accepted as settling the
question under consideration.
In Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, and Prince Edward Island
Though there is no statutory enactment making the English law
applicable, it has, since the acquisition of Acadia by Great
Britain, been recognized as being in force. In these provinces,
however, that law in so far as it may treat as void dispositions
for the purpose in question as being for superstitious uses, has
always been treated as inapplicable. The validity of such
bequests was maintained in an elaborate judgment of Hodgins,
Master of the Rolls, in an unreported case of Gillis and Gillis
in Prince Edward Island in 1894.
CHAS. J. DOHERTY.
Bequests For Masses (England)
Bequests for Masses (England)
Before the Reformation dispositions of property, whether real or
personal, for the purposes of Masses, were valid, unless where,
in the case of real property, they might happen to conflict with
the Mortmain laws by being made to religious congregations.
There was a tenure of land known as tenure by divine service, an
incident of which was the saying of Masses and of prayers for
the dead. The Statute of Westminster, 31 Edward III, c. 11,
contained a provision that the administrators of an intestate
should be able to recover by action debts due to the intestate
and that they should administer and dispense for the soul of the
dead. The wills of various great people who lived in those ages
contain bequests for Masses. Henry VII left -L-250 for 10,000
Masses to be said for his and other souls. The will of Henry
VIII, made on 30 December, 1546, contains a provision for an
altar over his tomb in St. George's Chapel in Windsor where
daily Mass shall be said "as long as the world shall indure",
and it sets out a grant to the dean and canons of the chapel of
lands to the value of -L-600 a year for ever to find two priests
to say Mass and to keep four obits yearly and to give alms for
the King's soul: and it contains other provisions for requiem
masses and prayers for his soul. But in a.d. 1531, by the
statute 23 Henry VIII, c. 10, all subsequent assurances or
dispositions of land to the use of a perpetual obit (i. e. a
service for the dead to be celebrated at certain fixed periods)
or the continual service of a priest were to be void if the use
was to extend over more than twenty years, but if the use was
limited to that or a less period the dispositions were to be
valid. That even private Masses, were at that time approved by
the state is shown by the six articles passed in a.d. 1539 (32
Henry VIII, c. 14), which constituted the denial of their
expediency a felony. Henry VIII died 28 January a.d. 1547. The
change of religion became much more marked in the following
reign, and the government fostered the establishment in England
of the Protestant doctrines which had begun to spread on the
continent. In the same year the Six Articles were repealed and
the Statute of Chauntries (1 Edward VI, c. 14) was passed from
which the invalidity of bequests for requiem Masses has been
deduced. The preamble to the statute recites that "a great part
of the superstition and errors in the Christian religion hath
been brought into the minds and estimation of men by reason of
the ignorance of their very true and perfect salvation through
the death of Jesus Christ and by devising and phantasying vain
opinions of purgatory and masses satisfactory to be done for
them which be departed, the which doctrine and vain opinion by
nothing more is maintained and upholden than by the abuse of
trentals, chauntries and other provisions made for the
continuance of the said blindness and ignorance." The statute,
after further reciting that the property given to such uses
ought to be devoted to the founding of schools and other good
purposes, enacted that property given to such uses, which had
been so used within the preceding five years, should be given to
the king. The statute only applied to past dispositions of
property and it did not declare the general illegality of
bequests for requiem Masses, nor has any other statute ever so
declared (Cary v. Abbot, 1802, 7 Ves. 495). Nevertheless, the
establishment of that principle has been deduced from it (West
v. Shuttleworth, 1835, 2 M. & K. 679; Heath v. Chapman, 1854, 2
Drew 423).
The statute was not repealed under Mary, and by 1 Eliz., c. 24,
all property devoted to such uses in Mary's reign was given to
the crown. There is a series of cases on the question decided
under Elizabeth, notably that of Adams v. Lambert, decided in
1602, in the report of which the other cases are cited. Some of
these decisions are slightly conflicting, but the main points to
be drawn from the series are, first, that uses for Masses or
prayers for the dead were held to be superstitions and unlawful,
but, second, that the question of their unlawfulness was
considered according as they came within the provisions of the
Statute 1 Edward VI, c. 14. In that and the following century
the Catholic religion was proscribed and any devise or bequest
for the promotion of it was illegal and, as regarded the purpose
thereof, void (Re Lady Portington 1692, 1 Salk 162). In the
report of that case, as also in other later cases, the terms
"superstitious" and "unlawful" appear to be applied
indifferently to purposes for the maintenance of the Catholic
religion. But dispositions for Catholic poor or Catholic schools
or other Catholic purposes which might come under the general
construction of "charity", passed to the crown to be devoted to
other lawful charitable purposes (Cary v. Abbot above). In 1829
the Roman Catholic Relief Act was passed, which contained,
however, in some of its sections still unrepealed, certain penal
provisions against members of religious orders of men by reason
of which the status of these orders in the United Kingdom is
illegal. In 1832 the Roman Catholic Charities Act (2 and 3
William IV, c. 115) was passed. By it Catholics were, as regards
their charitable purposes, put in the same position as that of
Protestant dissenters. Therefore now, seemingly, a bequest for
the celebration of Masses with no intention for souls departed
would be valid, and, moreover, it would constitute a good
charitable bequest, and so, it would be valid though made in
perpetuity (Re Michel's Trusts, 1860, 28 Beav. 42). But it has
been held that the act has not validated bequests for requiem
Masses, that the law still regards them as "superstitious" (West
v. Shuttleworth above), that they do not constitute charitable
bequests and that, accordingly, the property given under them
passes to the person otherwise entitled (Heath v. Chapman
above).
This is the position of the law today with the exception made by
the Roman Catholic Charities Act, 1860, which provides that no
lawful devise or bequest to any Catholic or Catholic Charity is
to be invalidated because the estate devised or bequeathed is,
also, subject to any trust deemed to be superstitious or
prohibited through being to religious orders of men, but such
latter trust may be apportioned by the Court or the Charity
Commissioners to some other lawful Catholic charitable trust.
Thus, a trust for requiem Masses is as such invalid, and where
no question of apportionment can arise, for instance, where
there is a specific legacy of money for the purpose only of such
Masses, the estate which is subject to the trust does not pass
to any charity but to the person otherwise entitled to it (Re
Fleetwood, Sidgreaves v. Brewer, 1880, 15 Ch. D. 609). Also, a
legacy for requiem Masses is invalid even though the legacy be
payable in a country where it would be legally valid (Re Elliot,
1891, 39 W. R. 297). The grounds on which this position of the
law is based appear rather unsatisfactory. Admittedly, there is
no direct statutory illegality. In the case of Heath v. Chapman
(above) Kindersley V. C. stated that the Statute I Edward VI, c.
14, assumed that trusts for Masses were already illegal -- that
they were in fact so -- and that the statute has stamped on all
such trusts, whether made before or since it, the character of
illegality on the ground of being superstitious. Seeing that the
statute was passed in the year of the death of Henry VIII,
within eight years of the passing of the Six Articles, and that
during that time there had been no statutory abolition of the
Mass or condemnation of the doctrine of purgatory, it is not
easy to discern how the legal invalidity of such bequests had
already become established. In West v. Shuttleworth (above),
which is the leading case on the subject, Pepys M. R. stated
that it was by analogy to the statute that the illegality of
these bequests had become established. This would seem to mean
that their illegality was based upon the general policy of the
law and upon principles resulting from such a change in the
national system as must have arisen in that age from the
complete change in the national church. In that case, since the
policy applied to the whole realm including Ireland, where
Protestantism became the established church and an even more
vigorous anti-Catholic policy was pursued by the legislature,
one would expect to find the illegality of bequests for Masses
established in Ireland also, though the statute itself did not
apply to Ireland. Thus, in the case of the Attorney-General v.
Power, 1809 (1 B. & Ben. 150) Lord Manners, Irish Lord
Chancellor, in giving judgment with regard to a bequest to a
school by a Catholic testator, stated that he would not act upon
the presumption that it was for the endowment of a Catholic
school, and that such a bequest would by the law of England be
deemed void either as being contrary to the provisions of the
statute of Edward VI or as being against public policy. Yet the
same Lord Chancellor, in the case of the Commissioners of
Charitable Donations v. Walsh, 1823, 7 Ir. Eq. 32, after a
prolonged argument before him, held a bequest for requiem Masses
to be good.
The ground of public policy in respect of this question seems no
longer to hold good. There is no longer any public policy
against Catholicism as such. As mentioned above, seemingly, a
bequest for the mere celebration of Masses with no intention for
souls departed would be valid. Moreover, seemingly, a bequest
for the propagation of the doctrine of purgatory would be a good
charitable bequest (Thornton v. Howe, 1862, 31 Beav. 19). Thus,
since the Roman Catholic Charities Act 1832, putting Catholics
as regards "their . . . charitable purposes" in the same
position as other persons, the holding a bequest for Masses for
the dead to be invalid appears necessarily to imply that the
bequest is not to a charitable purpose and thereby to involve
the inconsistency that it is not a "charity" to practise by the
exercise of a "charity" the doctrine which it is a "charity" to
propagate. Yet this is so even though, by the bequest being for
Masses to be said for the departed generally, there is evidence
of an intention on the part of the testator of promoting more
than his own individual welfare. Thus, apparently, the real
basis of the legal view of these bequests is that the law may
not recognize the purpose of a spiritual benefit to one's
fellow-creatures in an after existence intended by a person
believing in the possibility of such a benefit. But such an
attitude, apart from the inconsistency mentioned, seems to be
opposed to the present policy of the law with regard to
religious opinions, especially when the act of worship directed
by the bequest, when viewed apart from the particular believed
effect, is approved by the law as a charity. Doubt as to the
soundness of the present law on the subject was expressed by
Romilly M. R. in the case Re Michels Trusts (above), where he
upheld a bequest for a Jewish prayer to be recited on the
testator's anniversary in perpetuity, there being no evidence
that the prayer was to be recited for the benefit of the
testator's soul, and in the case re Blundell's Trusts, 1861 (30
Beav. 362), where he considered himself compelled, in compliance
with the judgment in West v. Shuttleworth (above), to disallow a
bequest by a Catholic testator for requiem Masses, stating that
the law declaring such bequests to be invalid had now become so
established that only a judgment of the House of Lords could
alter it. It would be desirable that the decision of that
tribunal should be obtained on this question.
In Ireland bequests for requiem Masses have long been regarded
as valid, and, by a recent decision given upon exhaustive
consideration of the question by the Irish Court of Appeal, the
law is settled that such bequests, even when the Masses are to
be said in private, constitute good charitable gifts and so may
be made in perpetuity (O'Hanlon v. Logue, 1906, 1 Ir. 247). But
in Ireland, also, religious orders of men are illegal and any
bequest for Masses to such an order which is to go to the
benefit of the order is illegal and void (Burke v. Power, 1905,
1 Ir. 123). But such a bequest was allowed in one recent case,
and in cases where the bequest for Masses contains no indication
that the money is to go to the order itself the Court will allow
the bequest (Bradshaw v. Jackman, 1887, 21 L. R. Ir. 15). The
decisions show a strong general tendency to seek any means of
escaping those penal provisions of the Catholic Relief Act,
1829, which, though never actively enforced, still remain on the
statute book. This statutory illegality of any bequest to a
religious order of men to go to the benefit of the order
applies, of course, equally to England and to Scotland, where
these provisions against religious orders are also law, but
there does not appear to be any report of any decision on the
point in either of these countries.
In Scotland the position seems, otherwise, to be as follows:
though, in the centuries succeeding the Reformation the public
policy was distinctly anti-Catholic and there was legislation
(like the anti-Popery Act passed in 1700, which, amongst other
provisions, penalized the hearing of Mass) directed against the
Catholic religion, yet there seems to have been no Statute which
has given rise to the question of "superstition" on the special
point of gifts for prayers for the dead. By an Act passed in
1793 Catholics in Scotland, who had made a declaration now no
longer required, were put upon the same footing as other
persons. The Catholic Charities Act, 1832, applied also to
Scotland. The term "charity" is even rather more widely
interpreted in Scottish law than in English law. Thus, in
Scotland through the repeal of the legislation against Catholics
and the legalization of bequests to their charitable purposes,
legacies for requiem Masses seem to pass unquestioned. There is
little doubt that, if they were to be challenged, the Courts
would uphold them. In a recent case where there was a bequest
for the celebration of Mass in perpetuity (there was no mention
of any intention for the dead) the validity of the bequest was
not in any way called in question (Marquess of Bute's Trustees
v. Marquess of Bute, 1904, 7 F. 42). The law as to superstitious
uses prevailing in England is not taken to be imported into the
laws of British colonies or possessions (Yeap v. Ong, 1875, L.
R. 6 C. P. 396). In Australia, though by an Act of the British
Parliament passed in 1828, all the laws and statutes in force in
England at that date were, as far as possible, to be applied to
the administration of justice in the Courts of the new
Australasian Colonies, the law as to superstitious uses has been
held by the Supreme Court of Victoria not to apply there (In the
Will of Purcell, 1895, 21, V. L. R. 249). This decision was
followed in the Supreme Court of New South Wales in 1907 (Re
Hartnett, 7 S. R. 463). There is little doubt that the law which
these cases declare would be followed in all other Australian
Colonies and in New Zealand. In India bequests for requiem
Masses are valid (Das Merces v. Cones, 1864, 2 Hyde 65; Judah v.
Judah, 1870, 2 B. L. R. 433).
COKE on Littleton 96 (b); NICHOL, Wills of the Kings and Queens
of England and of members of the Blood Royal from William the
Conqueror to Henry VII (London, 1780); Will of King Henry the
Eighth from an authentic copy in the Hands of an Attorney
(London, 1793); DUKE on the Law of Charitable Uses, edited by
BRIDGMAN (London, 1805).
R. S. NOLAN.
Devises and Bequests For Masses (United States)
Devises and Bequests for Masses (United States)
Prior to the period of the Reformation in England in 1532,
Masses for the repose of the souls of the donors of property
given for that purpose were upheld in England, but during that
year a statute was passed providing that thereafter all uses
declared of land, except leaseholds of twenty years, to the
intent to have perpetual or the continued service of a priest,
or other like uses, should be void. In the reign of Edward VI
(1547), another statute was passed declaring the king entitled
to all real and certain specified personal property theretofore
disposed of for the perpetual finding of a priest or maintenance
of any anniversary or obit, or other like thing, or any light or
lamp at any church or chapel. These statutes did not make
disposition of personal property to such uses void, and the
statute of Henry VIII was prospective and applied only to
assurances of land to churches and chapels, and that of Edward
VI was limited to dispositions of property, real and personal,
theretofore made. But the English chancellors and the English
judges, in the absence of any express statute, determined all
dispositions of property, whether real or personal, given or
devised for uses specified in the two statutes, to be absolutely
void as contrary to public policy, being for superstitious uses.
The decision covered legacies such as to priests to pray for the
soul of the donor or for the bringing up of poor children in the
Roman Catholic faith.
It has been expressly decided that these statutes and the
doctrine of superstitious uses as enunciated by the English
judges do not apply in the United States, although the first
colonies from which the States grew were established
subsequently to the dates of the adoption of the statutes
referred to, and this, notwithstanding the fact that in some of
the states statutes were passed adopting the common law and
statutes of England so far as the same might be applicable to
the altered condition of the settlers in the colonies. It has
been pointed out that it is a maxim of law in the United States
that a man may do what he will with his own, so long as he does
not violate the law by so doing or devote his property to an
immoral purpose; consequently, since there is a legal equality
of sects and all are thus in the eyes of the law equally
orthodox, to discriminate between what is a pious and what a
superstitious use would be to infringe upon the constitutional
guarantee of perfect freedom and equality of all religions (see
opinion of Tuley, J., in the case o Kehoe v. Kehoe, reported as
a note to Gilman v. McArdle, 12 Abb. N. C., 427 New York). In
none of the states of the Union, therefore, are bequests or
devises of property for Masses for the dead invalid on the
ground of being superstitious, but there is a diversity among
the decisions as to the circumstances under which such bequests
or devises will be sustained.
In New York the law of England on the subject of charitable and
religious trusts has been completely abrogated by statute, it
being intended that there should be no system of public
charities in that state except through the medium of corporate
bodies. The policy has been to enact from time to time general
and special laws specifying and sanctioning the particular
object to be promoted, restricting the amount of property to be
enjoyed, carefully keeping the subject under legislative
control, and always providing a competent and ascertained donee
to take and use the charitable gifts (Levy v. Levy, 33 N. Y,,
97; Holland v. Alcock, 108 N. Y., 312). In accordance with this
policy a general act was passed regulating the incorporation of
religious bodies, and empowering the trustees to take into their
possession property whether the same has been given, granted or
devised directly to a church, congregation or society, or to any
other person for their use (Laws of 1813, c. 60, s. 4, III;
Cummings and Gilbert, "Gen. Laws and other Statutes of N. Y.",
p. 3401). By the provisions of other statutes Roman Catholic
churches come under this act (Laws of 1862, c. 45; Cummings and
Gilbert, loc. cit., p. 3425). Therefore a bequest of real
property for Masses will be upheld if it comply with the
statutory requirements, which are;
+ (1) that the gift be to a corporation duly authorized by its
charter or by statute to take gifts for such purpose and not
to a private person;
+ (2) that the will by which the gift is made shall have been
properly executed at least two months before the testator's
death (Cummings and Gilbert, loc. cit., p. 4470; Laws of 1848,
c. 319; Laws of 1860, c. 360: Lefevre v. Lefevre, 59 N. Y.,
434), and
+ (3) that if the testator have a wife, child, or parent the
bequest shall not exceed one-half of his property after his
debts are paid (ibid., see Hagenmeyer's Will, 12 Abb. N. C.,
432).
Every trust of personal property, which is not contrary to
public policy and is not in conflict with the statute regulating
the accumulation of interest and protecting the suspension of
absolute ownership in property of that character, is valid when
the trustee is competent to take and a trust is for a lawful
purpose well defined so as to be capable of being specifically
executed by the court (Holmes v. Mead, 52 N. Y., 332). "If then
a Catholic desire to make provision by will for saying of Masses
for his soul, there is not the shadow of a doubt but that every
court in the State [New York], if not in the Union, would uphold
the bequest if the mode of making it were agreeable to the law"
(see careful article written in 1886 by F. A. McCloskey in
"Albany Law Journal", XXXII, 367).
For similar reasons in Wisconsin, where all trusts are abolished
by statute except certain specified trusts with a definite
beneficiary, a gift for Masses, to be good, must not be so
worded as to constitute a trust. Thus a bequest in the following
language: "I do give and bequeath unto the Roman Catholic Bishop
of the Diocese of Green Bay, Wisconsin, the sum of $4150, the
said sum to be used and applied as follows: For Masses for the
repose of my soul, two thousand dollars, for Masses for the
repose of the soul of my deceased wife, etc., etc." The court
held that a trust was created by this language, and says: "It is
evident that such a trust is not capable of execution, and no
court would take cognizance of any question in respect to it for
want of a competent party to raise and litigate any question of
abuse or perversion of the trust." But it adds: "We know of no
legal reason why any person of the Catholic faith, believing in
the efficacy of Masses, may not make a direct gift or bequest to
any bishop or priest of any sum out of his property or estate
for Masses for the repose of his soul or the souls of others, as
he may choose. Such gifts or bequests, when made in clear,
direct, and legal form, should be upheld; and they are not to be
considered as impeachable or invalid under the rule that
prevailed in England by which they were held void as gifts to
superstitious uses" (72 N. W. Rep., 631).
The same view was taken by the Supreme Court of Alabama, where a
bequest to a church to be used in solemn Masses for the repose
of the soul of the testator was held invalid inasmuch as it did
not respond to any one of the following tests:
+ (1) that it was a direct bequest to the church for its general
uses;
+ (2) that it created a charitable use; or
+ (3) that it created a valid private trust.
It was not a charity inasmuch as it was "for the benefit alone
of his own soul, and cannot be upheld as a public charity
without offending every principle of law by which such charities
are supported and it was not valid as a private trust for want
of a living beneficiary to support it (Festorazzi v. St.
Joseph's R. C. Church of Mobile, 25 Law. Rep. Ann., 360).
In Illinois an opposite conclusion is reached, it being held
distinctly that a devise for Masses for the repose of the soul
of the testator, or for the repose of the souls of other named
persons, is valid as a charitable use, and the devise for such
purpose will not be allowed to fail for want of a competent
trustee, but the court will appoint a trustee to take the gift
and apply it to the purposes of the trust. Such a bequest s
distinctly held to be within the definition of charities which
are to be sustained irrespective of the indefiniteness of the
beneficiaries, or of the lack of trustees, or the fact that the
trustees appointed are not competent to take; and it is not
derived from the Statute of Charitable Uses (43 Elizabeth, c.
4), but existed prior to and independent of that statute. The
court quotes with approval the definition of a charity as given
by Mr. Justice Gray of Massachusetts: "A charity in a legal
sense may be more fully defined as a gift, to be applied
consistently with existing laws, for the benefit of an
indefinite number of persons, either by bringing their hearts
under the influence of education or religion, by relieving their
bodies from disease, suffering, or constraint, by assisting them
to establish themselves for life, or by erecting and maintaining
public buildings or works, or otherwise lessening the burthen of
government. It is immaterial whether the purpose is called
charitable in the gift itself, if it be so described as to show
that it is charitable in its nature" (Jackson v. Phillips, 14
Allen, 539). The court proceeds to show that the Mass is
intended to be a repetition of the sacrifice of the Cross, and
is the chief and central act of worship in the Catholic Church;
that it is public. It points out the Catholic belief on the
subject of Purgatory, and holds that the adding of a particular
remembrance in the Mass does not change the character of the
religious service and render it a mere private benefit; and
further, that the bequest is an aid to the support of the clergy
(Hoeffer v. Clogan, 49 N. E. Rep., 527).
In Pennsylvania bequests and devises for Masses are distinctly
held to be gifts for religious uses, the Supreme Court of that
state having expressed the same view of the law subsequently
adopted in Illinois. The court uses the following language:
"According to the Roman Catholic system of faith there exists an
intermediate state of the soul, after death and before final
judgment, during which guilt incurred during life and unatoned
for must be expiated; and the temporary punishments to which the
souls of the penitent are thus subjected may be mitigated or
arrested through the efficacy of the Mass as a propitiatory
sacrifice. Hence the practice of offering Masses for the
departed. It cannot be doubted that, in obeying the injunction
of the testator, intercession would be specially invoked in
behalf of the testator alone. The service is just the same in
kind whether it be designed to promote the spiritual welfare of
one or many. Prayer for the conversion of a single impenitent is
as purely a religious act as a petition for the salvation of
thousands. The services intended to be performed in carrying out
the trust created by the testator's will, as well as the objects
designed to be attained, are all essentially religious in their
character" (Rhymer's Appeal, 93 Pa., 142). In Pennsylvania care
must be taken to observe the provisions of the Act of 26 April,
1855, P. L., 332, which prohibits devises or legacies for
charitable or religious uses, unless by will executed at least
one month before the death of the testator. A gift to be
expended for Masses, being a religious use, would come within
this statute. The provisions of the law relating to attesting
witnesses, requiring two credible and disinterested witnesses
when any gift is made by will for religious or charitable uses,
should also be noted.
In Massachusetts the courts take the same view as those of
Pennsylvania, that gifts for Masses are to be sustained as for
religious uses (Re Schouler, 134 Mass., 126).
In Iowa the Supreme Court has sustained a bequest "to the
Catholic priest who may be pastor of the R. Catholic Church when
this will shall be executed, three hundred dollars that Masses
may be said for me", as being valid, though it contains no
element of a charitable use. The court says: "We have said that
this bequest, if the priest should accept the money, is a
private trust: and we think it possesses the essential elements
of such a trust, as much as it would if the object were the
erection of a monument or the doing of any other act intended
alone to perpetuate the memory or name of the testator. But even
if there is a technical departure because of no living
beneficiary, still the bequest is valid. We have also said that
it is not a charity, and we can discover no element of a charity
in it. It seems to be a matter entirely personal to the
testator. In one or more cases the courts have felt the
necessity in order to sustain such a bequest, to denominate it a
charity because charitable bequests have had the sanction of the
law. We know of no such limitation on testamentary acts as that
bequests or devises must be in the line of other such acts, if
otherwise lawful" (Moran v. Moran, 73 N. W. Rep., 617).
It follows then that there is no legal inhibition on bequests
for Masses in any of the United States either on the ground of
public policy or because they offend against any inherent
principle of right. But care must be taken in drafting the will
to observe the statutes, where any exist, in relation to devises
or bequests in trust for any purpose as well as the current of
decisions where cases have arisen. The language should be clear
and drawn in accordance with legal rules. It should not be left
to the chances of interpretation.
See the authorities quoted above.
WALTER GEORGE SMITH.
Jean-Baptiste Massillon
Jean-Baptiste Massillon
A celebrated French preacher and bishop; born 24 June, 1663;
died 28 September, 1742. The son of Franc,ois Massillon, a
notary of Hyeres in Provence, he began his studies in the
college of that town and completed them in the college of
Marseilles, both under the Oratorians. He entered the
Congregation of the Oratory at the age of eighteen. After his
novitiate and theological studies, he was sent as professor to
the colleges of the congregation at Pezenas, Marseilles,
Montbrison, and, lastly, Vienne, where he taught philosophy and
theology for six years (1689-95).
Ordained priest in 1691, he commenced preaching in the chapel of
the Oratory at Vienne and in the vicinity of that city. Upon the
death of Villeroy, Archbishop of Lyons (1693), he was called
upon to deliver the funeral oration, and six months later that
of M. de Villars, Archbishop of Vienne. Joining the Lyons
Oratory in 1695, and summoned to Paris in the following year, to
be director of the Seminary of Saint-Magloire, he was
thenceforward able to devote himself exclusively to preaching.
As director of this seminary he delivered those lectures
(conferences) to young clerics which are still highly esteemed.
But a year later he was removed from his position at
Saint-Magloire for having occupied himself too exclusively with
preaching. Having preached the Lent at Montpellier in 1698, he
preached it the next year at the Oratory of Paris. His eloquence
in this series of discourses was very much approved, and,
although he aimed at preaching in a style unlike that of his
predecessors, public opinion already hailed him as the successor
of Bossuet and Bourdaloue who were at that time reduced to
silence by age. At the end of this year he preached the Advent
at the court of Louis XIV -- an honour which was in those days
highly coveted as the consecration of a preacher's fame. He
justified every hope, and the king wittily declared that, where
he had formerly been well pleased with the preachers, he was now
very ill pleased with himself. Massillon, by command, once more
appeared in the chapel of Versailles for the Lent of 1701.
Bossuet, who, according to his secretary, had thought Massillon
very far from the sublime in 1699, this time declared himself
very well satisfied, as was the king. Massillon was summoned
again for the Lent of 1704. This was the apogee of his eloquence
and his success. The king assiduously attended his sermons, and
in the royal presence Massillon delivered that discourse "On the
Fewness of the Elect", which is considered his masterpiece.
Nevertheless, whether because the compromising relations of the
orator with certain great families had produced a bad impression
on the king, or because Louis ended by believing him inclined --
as some of his brethren of the Oratory were thought to be -- to
Jansenism, Massillon was never again summoned to preach at the
Court during the life of Louis XIV, nor was he even put forward
for a bishopric. Nevertheless he continued, from 1704 to 1718,
to preach Lent and Advent discourses with great success in
various churches of Paris. Only in the Advent of 1715 did he
leave those churches to preach before the Court of Stanislas,
King of Lorraine.
In the interval he preached, with only moderate success, sermons
at ceremonies of taking the habit, panegyrics, and funeral
orations. Of his funeral orations that on Louis XIV is still
famous, above all for its opening: "God alone is great" --
uttered at the grave of a prince to whom his contemporaries had
yielded the title of "The Great".
After the death of this king Massillon returned to favour at
Court. In 1717 the regent nominated him to the Bishopric of
Clermont (Auvergne) and caused him to preach before the young
king, Louis XV, the Lenten course of 1718, which was to comprise
only ten sermons. These have been published under the title of
"Le Petit Careme" -- Massillon's most popular work. Finally, he
was received, a few months later, into the French Academy, where
Fleury, the young king's preceptor, pronounced his eulogy.
But Massillon, consecrated on 21 December, 1719, was in haste to
take possession of his see. With its 29 abbeys, 224 priories,
and 758 parishes, the Diocese of Clermont was one of the largest
in France. The new bishop took up his residence there, and left
it only to assist, by order of the regent, in the negotiations
which were to decide the case of Cardinal de Noailles (q. v.)
and certain bishops suspected of Jansenism, in accepting the
Bull "Unigenitus", to assist at the coronation of Louis XV, and
to preach the funeral sermon of the Duchess of Orleans, the
regent's mother.
He made it his business to visit one part of his diocese each
year, and at his death he had been through the whole diocese
nearly three times, even to the poorest and remotest parishes.
He set himself to re-establish or maintain ecclesiastical
discipline and good morals among his clergy. From the year 1723
on, he annually assembled a synod of the priests; he did this
once more in 1742, a few days before his death. In these synods
and in the retreats which followed them he delivered the synodal
discourses and conferences which have been so much, and so
justly, admired. If he at times displayed energy in reforming
abuses, he was generally tender and fatherly towards his clergy;
he was willing to listen to them; he promoted their education,
by attaching benefices to his seminaries, and assured them a
peaceful old age by building a house of retirement for them. He
defended his clergy against the king's ministers, who wished to
increase their fiscal burdens, and he never ceased to guard them
against the errors and subterfuges of the Jansenists, who,
indeed, assailed him sharply in their journal "Les Nouvelles
Ecclesiastiques".
Thoroughly devoted to all his diocesan flock, he busied himself
in improving their condition. This is apparent in his
correspondence with the king's intendants and ministers, in
which he does his utmost to alleviate the lot of the Auvergne
peasantry whenever there is a disposition to increase their
taxation, or the scourge of a bad season afflicts their crops.
The poor were always dear to him: not only did he plead for them
in his sermons, but he assisted them out of his bounty, and at
his death he instituted the hospital of Clermont for his
universal heirs, the poor. His death was lamented, as his life
had been blessed and admired by his contemporaries. Posterity
has numbered him with Bossuet, Fenelon, Flechier, and Mascaron,
among the greatest French bishops of the eighteenth century. As
an orator, no one was more appreciated by the eighteenth
century, which placed him easily -- at least as to preaching
properly so called -- above Bossuet and Bourdaloue. Our age
places him rather lower. Massillon has neither the sublimity of
Bossuet nor the logic of Bourdaloue: with him the sermon
neglects dogma for morality, and morality loses its authority,
and sometimes its security, in the eyes of Christians. For at
times he is so severe as to render himself suspect of Jansenism,
and again he is so lax as to be accused of complaisancy for the
sensibilities and the philosophism of his time. His chief merit
was to have excelled in depicting the passions, to have spoken
to the heart in a language it always understood, to have made
the great, and princes, understand the loftiest teachings of the
Gospel, and to have made his own life and his work as a bishop
conform to those teachings. During Massillon's lifetime only the
funeral oration on the Prince de Conti was published (1709); he
even disavowed a collection of sermons which appeared under his
name at Trevoux (1705, 1706, 1714). The first authentic edition
of his works appeared in 1745, published by his nephew, Father
Joseph Massillon, of the Oratory; it has been frequently
reprinted. But the best edition was that of Blampignon,
Bar-le-Duc, 1865-68, and Paris, 1886, in four vols. It comprises
ten sermons for Advent, forty-one for Lent, eight on the
mysteries, four on virtues, ten panegyrics, six funeral
orations, sixteen ecclesiastical conferences, twenty synodal
discourses, twenty-six charges, paraphrases on thirty psalms,
some pensees choisies, and some fifty miscellaneous letters or
notes.
D'ALEMBERT, Eloge de Massillon in Histoire des membres de
l'Academie franc,aise (Paris, 1787), I; V; BAYLE, Massilion
(Paris, 1867); BLAMPIGNON, Massillon d'apres des documents
inedits (Paris, 1879); L'episcopat de Massillon (Paris, 1884);
ATTAIS, Etude sur Massillon (Toulouse, 1882); COHENDY,
Correspondance Mandements de Massillon (Clermont, 1883); PAUTHE,
Massillon (Paris, 1908).
ANTOINE DEGERT.
Massorah
Massorah
The textual tradition of Hebrew Bible, an official registration
of its words, consonants, vowels and accents. It is doubtful
whether the word should be pointed from the New Hebrew verb "to
hand down," or from the verb meaning "to bind." The former
pointing is seen in Ezech. xx, 37; the latter is due to the fact
that in the Mishna, the word's primary meaning is "tradition".
Our chief witness to Massorah is the actual text of manuscripts
of the Hebrew Bible. Other witnesses are several collections of
Massorah and the numerous marginal notes scattered over Hebrew
manuscripts. The upper and lower margins and the end of the
manuscript contain the Greater Massorah, such as lists of words;
the side margins contain the lesser Massorah such as variants.
The best collection of Massorah is that of Ginsburg, "The
Massorah compiled from manuscripts alphabetically and lexically
arranged" (3 vols. London, 1880-85).
This article will treat: (I) the history and (II) the critical
value of Massorah. For the number and worth of Massoretic
manuscripts, see MANUSCRIPTS OF THE BIBLE.
I. HISTORY OF MASSORAH
Their sacred books were to the Jews an inspired code and record,
a God-intended means to conserve the political and religious
unity; and fidelity of the nation. It was imperative upon them
to keep those books intact. So far back as the first century
B.C., copyists and revisers were trained and employed to fix the
Hebrew text. All had one purpose, -- to copy, i.e. according to
the face-value of the Massorah. To reproduce their exemplar
perfectly, to hand down the Massorah -- only this and nothing
more was purposed by the official copyist of the Hebrew Bible.
Everything new was shunned. There is evidence that false
pronunciations were fixed by Massorah centuries before the
invention of points such as are seen in our present Massoretic
text. At times such early translations as those of Aquila,
Theodotion, the Septuagint and the Peshitto give evidence of
precisely the same erroneous pronunciation as is found at the
pointed Hebrew text of to-day.
(1) The Consonantal Text
Hebrew had no vowels in its alphabet. Vowel sounds were for the
most part handed down by tradition. Certain consonants were used
to express some long vowels, these consonants were called Matres
lectionis, because they determined the pronunciation. The
efforts of copyists would seem to have become more and more
minute and detailed in the perpetuation of the consonantal text.
These copyists (grammateis) were at first called Sopherim (from
the Hebrew word meaning "to count"), because, as the Talmud
says, "they counted all the letters in the Torah" (Kiddushin,
30a). It was not till later on that the name Massoretes, was
given to the preservers of Massorah. In the Talmudic period (c.
A.D.300-500), the rules for perpetuating Massorah were extremely
detailed. Only skins of clean animals must be used for parchment
rolls and fastenings thereof. Each column must be of equal
length, not more than sixty nor less than forty-eight lines.
Each line must contain thirty letters, written with black ink of
a prescribed make-up and in the square letters which were the
ancestors of our present Hebrew text letters. The copyist must
have before him an authentic copy of the text; and must not
write from memory a single letter, not even a yod -- every
letter must be copied from the exemplar, letter for letter. The
interval between consonants should be the breadth of a hair,
between words, the breadth of narrow consonant; between
sections, the breadth of nine consonants; between books, the
breadth of three lines.
Such numerous and minute rules, though scrupulously observed,
were not enough to satisfy the zeal to perpetuate the
consonantal text fixed and unchanged. Letters were omitted which
had surreptitiously crept in, variants and conjectural readings
were indicated inside-margins -- words, "read but not written"
(Qere), "written but not read" (Kethibh), "read one way but
written another". These marginal critical notes went on
increasing with time. Still more was done to fix the consonantal
text. The words and letters of each book and of every section of
the twenty-four books of the Hebrew Bible were counted. The
middle words and rnidddle letters of books and sections were
noted. In the Talmud, we see how one rabbi was wont to pester
the other with such trivial textual questions as the
juxtaposition of certain letters in this or that section, the
half-section in which this consonant or that was, etc. The
rabbis counted the number of times certain words and phrases
occurred in the several books and in the whole Bible; and
searched for mystic meanings in that number of times. On the top
and bottom margins of manuscripts, they grouped various
peculiarities of the text and drew up alphabetical lists of
words which occurred equally often -- for instance, of those
which appeared once with and once without waw. In Cod. Babylon.
Petropolitanus (A.D. 916), we have many critical marginal notes
of such and of other peculiarities, v.g. a list of fourteen
words written with final He which are to be read with Waw, and
of eight words written with final Waw, which are to be read with
He. Such were some of the painstaking means employed to preserve
the consonantal text of the Massorah.
(2) The Points
Rolls that were destined for use in the synagogue were always
unpointed. Rolls that were for other use came in time to receive
vowel-points and accents; these latter indicated the
interrelation of words and modulation of the voice in public
cantillation. One scribe wrote the consonantal text; another put
in vowel-points and accents of Massorah. The history of
vocalization of the text is utterly unknown to us. It has been
suggested that dogmatic interpretation clearly led to certain
punctuations; but it is likelier that the pronunciation was part
of Massorah long before the invention of punctuation. The very
origin of this invention is doubtful. Bleek assigns it to the
eighth century (cf. "Introd. to O.T." I, 109, London, 1894).
Points were certainly unused in St. Jerome's time; he had no
knowledge whatsoever of them. The punctuation of the traditional
text was just as certainly complete in the nineth century; for
R. Saadia Gaon (d. 942), of Fayum in Egypt, wrote treatises
thereon. The work of punctuating must have gone on for years and
been done by a large number of scholars who laboured conjointly
and authoritatively. Strack (see "Text of O.T.", in Hastings,
"Dict. of Bib.") says it is practically certain that the points
came into Massorah by Syriac influence. Syrians strove, by such
signs, to perpetuate the correct vocalization and intonation of
their Sacred text. Their efforts gave an impulse to Jewish zeal
for the traditional vocalization of the Hebrew Bible. Bleek
("Introd. to 0.T.", I, 110, London, 1894) and others are equally
certain that Hebrew scholars received their impulse to
punctuation from the Moslem method of preserving the Arabic
vocalization of the Koran. That Hebrew scholars were influenced
by either Syriac or Arabic punctuation is undoubted. Both forms
and names of the Massoretic points indicate either Syriac or
Arabic origin. What surprises us is the absence of any vestige
of opposition to this introduction into Massorah of points that
were most decidedly not Jewish. The Karaite Jews surprise us
still more, since, during a very brief period, they
transliterated the Hebrew text in Arabic characters.
At least two systems of punctuation are Massoretic: the Western
and the Eastern. The Western is called Tiberian, after the far
famed school of Massorah at Tiberias. It prevailed over the
Eastern system and is followed in most manuscripts as well as in
all printed editions of the Massoretic text. By rather
complicated and ingenious combinations of dots and dashes,
placed either above or below the consonants, the Massoretes
accurately represented ten vowel sounds (long and short a, e, i,
o, u) together with four half-vowels or Shewas. These latter
corresponded to the very much obscured English sounds of e, a,
and o. The Tiberian Massoretes also introduced a great many
accents to indicate the tone-syllable of a word, the logical
correlation of words and the voice modulation in public reading.
The Eastern or Babylonian system of punctuation shows dependence
on the Western and is found in a few manuscripts -- chiefest of
which is Cod. Babylon. Petropolitanus (A.D. 916). It was the
punctuation of Yemen till the eighteenth century. The vowel
signs are all above the consonants and are formed from the
Matres lectionis. Disjunctive accents of this supralinear
punctuation have signs like the first letter of their name;
zaqeph; tarha. A third system of punctuation has been found in
two fragments of the Bible lately brought to light in Egypt and
now in the Bodleian Library (cf. Kahle in "Zeitschrift fur die
Alttestam. Wissensehaft", 1901; Friedlander, "A third system of
symbols for the Hebrew vowels and accents" in "Jewish Quarterly
Review", 1895). The invention of points greatly increased the
work of scribes; they now set themselves to list words with a
view to perpetuating not only the consonants but the vowels Cod
Babyl. Petropolitanus (A.D. 916), for instance, lists eighteen
words beginning with Lamed and either Shewa or Hireq followed by
Shewa; eighteen words beginning with Lamed and Pathah; together
with an alphabetical list of words, which occur only once.
II. CRITICAL VALUE OF MASSORAH
During the seventeenth century, many Protestant theologians,
such as the Buxtorfs, defended the Massoretic text as
infallible; and considered that Esdras together with the men of
the Great Synagogue had, under the inspiration of the Holy
Spirit, not only determined the Hebrew canon but fixed forever
the text of the Hebrew Bible, its vowel points and accents, its
division into verses and paragraphs and books. Modern text
critics value Massorah, just as the Itala and Peshitto, only as
one witness to a text of the second century. The pointed
Massoretic text is witness to a text which is not certainly
earlier than the eighth century. The consonantal text is a far
better witness; unfortunately the tradition of this text was
almost absolutely uniform. There were different schools of
Massoretes, but their differences have left us very few variants
of the consonantal text (see MANUSCRIPTS OF THE BIBLE). The
Massoretes were slaves to Massorah and handed down one and one
only text. Even textual peculiarities clearly due to error or
accident, were perpetuated by rabbis who puzzled their brains to
ferret out mystical interpretations of these peculiarities.
Broken and inverted letters, consonants that were too small or
too large, dots that were out of place -- all such vagaries were
slavishly handed down as if God-intended and full of Divine
meaning.
WALTER DRUM
Antoine Massoulie
Antoine Massoulie
Theologian, born at Toulouse, 28 Oct., 1632; died at Rome, 23
Jan., 1706. At an early age he entered the order of St. Dominic,
in which he held many important offices; but above all these, he
prized study, teaching, and writing, for the love of which he
refused a bishopric and asked to be relieved of distracting
duties. It was said that he knew by heart the Summa of St
Thomas. He devoted himself with such earnestness to the study of
Greek and Hebrew that he could converse fluently in both of
these languages. His knowledge of Hebrew enabled him to overcome
in public debate two Jewish Rabbis, one at Avignon in 1659, the
other at Florence in l695. The latter became an exemplary
Christian, his conversion being modestly ascribed by Massoulie
to prayer more than to successful disputation. His published
works and some unpublished manuscripts (preserved in the
Casanatense Library at Rome) may be divided into two classes:
those written in defence of the Thomistic doctrine of physical
premotion, relating to God's action on free agents, and those
written against the Quietists, whom he strenuously opposed, both
by attacking their false teaching and also by explaining the
true doctrine according to the principles of St. Thomas. His
principal works are: "Divus Thomas sui interpres de divina
motione et libertate creata" (Rome, 1692); "Oratio ad
explicandam Summan theologicam D. Thomae" (Rome, 1701);
"Meditationes de S.Thomas sur les trois vies, purgative,
illuminative et unitive" (Toulouse, 1678); "Traite de la
veritable oraison, ou les erreurs des Quietistes sont refutees"
(Paris, 1699); "Traite de l'amour de Dieu" (Paris, 1703).
D.J. KENNEDY
Rene Massuet
Rene Massuet
Benedictine patrologist, of the Congregation of St. Maur; born
13 August, 1666, at St. Ouen de Mancelles in the diocese of
Evreux; died 11 Jan. 1716, at St. Germain des Pres in Paris. He
made his solemn profession in religion in 1682 at Notre Dame de
Lire, and studied at Bonnenouvelle in Orleans, where he showed
more than ordinary ability. After teaching philosophy in the
Abbey of Bee, and theology at St. Stephen 's, in Caen, he
attended the lectures of the University and obtained the degrees
of bachelor and licentiate in law. After this he taught a year
at Jumieges and three years at Fecamp. He spent the year 1702 in
Rome in the study of Greek. The following year he was called to
St. Germain des Pres and taught theology there to the end of his
life. His principal work, which he undertook rather reluctantly,
is the edition of the writings of St. Irenaeus, Paris, 1710. An
elegant edition of these writings had appeared at Oxford, 1702,
but the editor, John Ernest Grabe was less intent on an accurate
rendering of the text than on making Irenaeus favour Anglican
views. Massuet enriched his edition with valuable dissertations
on the heresies inpugned by St. Irenaeus and on the life,
writings, and teaching of the saint. He also edited the fifth
volume of the "Annales Ord. S. Ben". of Mabillon, with some
additions and a preface inclusive of the biographies of Mabillon
and Ruinart. We owe hirn, moreover, a letter to John B.
Langlois, S.J., in defence of the Benedictine edition of St.
Augustine, and five letters addressed to Bernard Pez found in
Schelhorn's "Amoenitates Literariae". He left in manuscript a
work entitled "Augustinus Graecus", in which he quotes all the
passages of St. John Chrysostom on grace.
FRANCIS MERSHMANN
Quentin Massys
Quentin Massys
(MESSYS, METZYS)
A painter, born at Louvain in 1466; died at Antwerp in 1530
(bet. 13 July and 16 September), and not in 1529, as his epitaph
states (it dates from the seventeenth century). The life of this
great artist is all adorned, or obscured, with legends. It is a
fact that he was the son of a smith. There is nothing to prove,
but it is not impossible that he first followed his father's
trade. In any case he was a "bronzier" and medalist. On 29
March, 1528, Erasmus wrote to Boltens that Massys had engraved a
medallion of him (Effigiem meam fudit aere). This was perhaps
the medal dated 1519, a copy of which is at the Museum of Basle.
In 1575 Molanas in his history of Louvain states that Quentin is
the author of the standard of the baptismal fonts at St-Pierre,
but his account is full of errors. As for the wrought iron dome
over the well in the Marche-aux-Gants at Antwerp, which popular
tradition attributes to him, the attribution is purely fanciful.
Tradition also states that the young smith, in love with a young
woman of Antwerp, became a painter for her sake. Indeed this
pretty fable explains the poetical character of Massys. All his
works are like love songs. Facts tell us only that the young
man, an orphan since he was fifteen, was emancipated by his
mother 4 April, 1491, and that in the same year he was entered
as a painter on the registers of the Guild of Antwerp. He kept a
studio which four different pupils entered from 1495 to 1510.
He had six children by a first marriage with Alyt van Tuylt. She
died in 1507. Shortly afterwards, in 1508 or 1509, he married
Catherine Heyns, who bore him, according to some, ten children,
according to others, seven. He seems to have been a respected
personage. As has been seen, he had relations with Erasmus,
whose portrait he painted in 1517 (the original, or an ancient
copy, is at Hampton Court), and with the latter's friend, Petrus
Egidius (Peter Gillis), magistrate of Antwerp, whose portrait by
Massys is preserved by Lord Radnor at Longford. Duerer went to
visit him immediately on his return from his famous journey to
the Low Countries in 1519. On 29 July of that year Quentin had
purchased a house, for which he had perhaps carved a wooden
statue of his patron saint. In 1520 he worked together with 250
other artists on the triumphal arches for the entry of Emperor
Charles V. In 1524 on the death of Joachim Patenier he was named
guardian of the daughters of the deceased. This is all we learn
from documents concerning him. He led a quiet, well-ordered,
middle-class, happy life, which scarcely tallies with the
legendary figure of the little smith becoming a painter through
love.
Nevertheless, in this instance also, the legend is right. For
nothing explains better the appearance in the dull prosaic
Flemish School of the charming genius of this lover-poet. It
cannot be believed, as Molanus asserts, that he was the pupil of
Rogier van der Weyden, since Rogier died in 1484, two years
before Quentin's birth. But the masters whom he might have
encountered at Louvain such as Gonts, or even Dirck, the best
among them, distress by a lack of taste and imagination a
dryness of ideas and style which is the very opposite of
Massys's manner. Add to this that his two earliest known works,
in fact the only two which count, the "Life of St. Anne" at
Brussels and the Antwerp triptych, the "Deposition from the
Cross", date respectively from 1509 and 1511, that is from a
period when the master was nearly fifty years old. Up to that
age we know nothing concerning him. The "Banker and His Wife"
(Louvre) and the "Portrait of a Young Man" (Collection of Mme.
Andre), his only dated works besides his masterpieces, belong to
1513 and 1514 (or 1519). We lack all the elements which would
afford us an idea of his formation. He seems like an
inexplicable, miraculous flower.
When it is remembered that his great paintings have been almost
ruined by restorations, it will be understood that the question
of Massys contains insoluble problems. In fact the triptych of
St. Anne at Brussels is perhaps the most gracious, tender and
sweet of all the painting of the North. And it will always be
mysterious, unless the principal theme, which represents the
family or the parents of Christ, affords some light. It is the
theme, dear to Memling, of "spiritual conversations", of those
sweet meetings of heavenly persons, in earthly costumes, in the
serenity of a Paradisal court. This subject, whose unity is
wholly interior and mystic, Memling, as is known, had brought
from Germany, where it had been tirelessly repeated by painters,
especially by him who was called because of this, the Master der
Heiligen Sippe. Here the musical, immaterial harmony, resulting
from a composition which might be called symphonic, was enhanced
by a new harmony, which was the feeling of the circulation of
the same blood in all the assembled persons. It was the poem
arising from the quite Germanic intimacy of the love of family.
One is reminded of Suso or of Tauler. The loving, tender genius
of Massys would be stirred to grave joy in such a subject. The
exquisite history of St. Anne, that poem of maternity, of the
holiness of the desire to survive in posterity, has never been
expressed in a more penetrating, chaste, disquieting art.
Besides, it was the beginning of the sixteenth century and
Italian influences were making themselves felt everywhere.
Massys translated them into his brilliant architecture, into the
splendour of the turquoise which he imparted to the blue summits
of the mountains, to the horizons of his landscapes. A charming
luxury mingles with his ideas and disfigures them. It was a
unique work, a unique period; that of an ephemeral agreement
between the genius of the North and that of the Renaissance,
between the world of sentiment and that of beauty. This harmony
which was at the foundation of all the desires of the South,
from Duerer to Rembrandt and Goethe, was realized in the simple
thought of the ancient smith. By force of candour, simplicity,
and love he found the secret which others sought in vain. With
still greater passion the same qualities are found in the
Antwerp "Deposition". The subject is treated, not in the Italian
manner, as in the Florentine or Umbrian "Pietas", but with the
familiar and tragic sentiment which touches the Northern races.
It is one of the "Tombs" compositions, of which the most famous
are those of Saint Mihiel and Solesmes. The body of Christ is
one of the most exhausted, the most "dead", the most moving that
painting has ever created. All is full of tenderness and
desolation.
Massys has the genius of tears. He loves to paint tears in large
pearls on the eyes, on the red cheeks of his holy women, as in
his wonderful "Magdalen" of Berlin or his "Piet`a" of Munich.
But he had at the same time the keenest sense of grace. His
Herodiases, his Salomes (Antwerp triptych) are the most
bewitching figures of all the art of his time. And this
excitable nervousness made him particularly sensitive to the
ridiculous side of things. He had a sense of the grotesque, of
caricature, of the droll and the hideous, which is displayed in
his figures of old men, of executioners. And this made him a
wonderful genre painter. His "Banker" and his "Money Changers"
inaugurated in the Flemish School the rich tradition of the
painting of manners. He had a pupil in this style, Marinus, many
of whose pictures still pass under his name.
Briefly, Massys was the last of the great Flemish artists prior
to the Italian invasion. He was the most sensitive, the most
nervous, the most poetical, the most comprehensive of all, and
in him is discerned the tumultuous strain which was to appear
100 years later in the innumerable works of Rubens.
VAN MANDER, Le Livre des Peintres, ed. HYMANS (Paris, 1884);
WAAGEN, Treasures of Art in England (London, 1854); HYMANS,
Quentin Metzys in Gazette des Beaux-Arts (1888); COHEN, Studien
zu Quentin Metzys (Bonn, 1894); DE BOSSCHERE, Quentin Metzys
(Brussels, 1907); WURZBACH, Niederlaendisches Kunstlerlexicon
(Leipzig, 1906-10).
LOUIS GILLET
Master of the Sacred Palace
Master of the Sacred Palace
This office (which has always been entrusted to a Friar
Preacher) may briefly be described as being that of the pope's
theologian. St. Dominic, appointed in 1218, was the first Master
of the Sacred Palace (Magister Sacri Palatii). Among the
eighty-four Dominicans who have succeeded him, eighteen were
subsequently created cardinals, twenty-four were made
archbishops or bishops (including some of the cardinals), and
six were elected generals of the order. Several are famous for
their works on theology, etc., but only Durandus, Torquemada,
Prierias, Mamachi, and Orsi can be mentioned here. As regards
nationality: the majority have been Italians; of the remainder
ten have been Spaniards and ten Frenchmen, one has been a German
and one an Englishman (i.e. William de Boderisham, or Bonderish,
1263-1270?). It has sometimes been asserted that St. Thomas of
Aquin was a Master of the Sacred Palace. This is due to a
misconception. He was Lector of the Sacred Palace. The offices
were not identical. (See Bullarium O. P., III, 18.) Though he
and two other contemporary Dominicans, namely his teacher Bl.
Albert the Great and his fellow pupil Bl. Ambrose Sansedonico
(about both of whom the same assertion has been made) held
successively the office of Lecturer on Scripture or on Theology
in the papal palace school, not one of them was Master of the
Sacred Palace. Their names do not occur in the official lists.
While all Masters of the Sacred Palace were Dominicans, several
members of other orders were Lectors of the Sacred Palace (e.g.
Peckham O.S.F., who became Archbishop of Canterbury in 1279).
St. Dominic's work as Master of the Sacred Palace consisted
partly at least in expounding the Epistles of St. Paul (Colonna,
O.P., c: 1255, who says that the commentary was then extant;
Flaminius; S. Antonius; Malvenda, in whose time the MS. of the
Epistles used by the Saint as Master of the Sacred Palace was
preserved in Toulouse; Echard; Renazzi; Mortier, etc.). These
exegetical lectures were delivered to prelates and to the
clerical attendants of cardinals who, as the saint observed, had
been accustomed to gather in the antechamber and to spend the
time in gossip while their masters were having audiences with
the pope. According to Renazzi (I, 25), St. Dominic may be
regarded as the founder of the papal palace school, since his
Biblical lectures were the occasion of its being established.
Catalanus, who, however, is not guilty of the confusion alluded
to above, says he was the first Lector of the Sacred Palace as
well as the first Master of the Sacred Palace. In the thirteenth
century the chief duty of the Master of the Sacred Palace was to
lecture on Scripture and to preside over the theological school
in Vatican: "in scholae Romanae et Pontificiae regimine et in
publica sacrae scripturae expositione" (Echard). The Lectores or
Magistri scholarum S. Palatii taught under him. It became
customary for the Master of the Sacred Palace, according to
Cardinal de Luca, to preach before the pope and his court in
Advent and Lent. This had probably been sometimes done by St.
Dominic. Up to the sixteenth century the Master of the Sacred
Palace preached, but after it this work was permanently
entrusted to his companion (a Dominican). A further division of
labour was made by Benedict XIV (Decree, "Inclyta Fratrum",
1743); at present the companion preaches to the papal household,
and a Capuchin preaches to the pope and to the cardinals.
But the work of the Master of the Sacred Palace as papal
theologian continues to the present day. As it has assumed its
actual form by centuries of development, we may give a summary
of the legislation respecting it and the various functions it
comprises and also of the honours attaching to it. The "Acta"
(or "Calenda") of the Palatine officials in 1409 (under
Alexander V) show that on certain days the Master of the Sacred
Palace was bound to deliver lectures and on other days was
expected, if called upon, either to propose or to answer
questions at the theological conference which was held in the
pope's presence. On 30 October, 1439, Eugene IV decreed that the
Master of the Sacred Palace should rank next to the dean of the
Rota, that no one should preach before the pope whose sermon had
not been previously approved of by him, and that in accordance
with ancient usage no one could be made a doctor of theology in
Rome but by him (Bullarium O. P., III, 81). Callistus III (13
November, 1455) confirmed and amplified the second part of this
decree, but at the same time exempted cardinals from its
operation (ibid., p. 356). At present it has fallen into disuse.
In the Fifth Lateran Council (sess. x, 4 May, 1513) Leo X
ordained that no book should be printed either in Rome or in its
district without leave from the cardinal vicar and the Master of
the Sacred Palace (ibid., IV, 318). Paul V (11 June, 1620) and
Urban VIII added to the obligations imposed by this decree. So
did Alexander VII in 1663 (Bullarium, passim). All these later
enactments regard the inhabitants of the Roman Province or of
the Papal States. They were renewed by Benedict XIV (1 Sept.,
1744). And the permission of the Master of the Sacred Palace
must be got not only to print, but to publish, and before the
second permission is granted, three printed copies must be
deposited with him, one for himself, another for his companion,
a third a for the cardinal vicar. The Roman Vicariate never
examines work intended for publication. For centuries the
imprimatur of the Master of the Sacred Palace who always
examines them followed the Si videbitur Reverendissimo Magistro
Sacri Palatii of the cardinal vicar; now in virtue of custom but
not of any ascertained law, since about the year 1825 the
cardinal vicar gives an imprimatur, and it follows that of the
Master of the Sacred Palace. At present the obligation once
incumbent on cardinals of presenting their work to the Master of
the Sacred Palace for his imprimatur has fallen into disuse, but
through courtesy many cardinals do present their works. In the
Constitution "Officiorum ac munerum" (25 Jan., 1897), Leo XIII
declared that all persons residing in Rome may get leave from
the Master of the Sacred Palace to read forbidden books, and
that if authors who live in Rome intend to get their works
published elsewhere, the joint imprimatur of the cardinal vicar
and the Master of the Sacred Palace renders it unnecessary to
ask any other approbation. As is well known, if an author not
resident in Rome desires to have his work published there,
provided that an agreement with the author's Ordinary has been
made and that the Master of the Sacred Palace judges favourably
of the work, the imprimatur will be given. In this case the book
is known by its having two title pages: the one bearing the name
of the domiciliary, the other of the Roman publisher.
Before the establishment of the Congregations of the Inquisition
(in 1542) and Index (1587), the Master of the Sacred Palace
condemned books and forbade reading them under censure.
Instances of his so doing occur regularly till about the middle
of the sixteenth century; one occurred as late as 1604, but by
degrees this task has been appropriated to the above-mentioned
congregations of which he is an ex-officio member. The Master of
the Sacred Palace was made by Pius V (29 July, 1570; see
"Bullarium", V, 245) canon theologian of St. Peter's, but this
Bull was revoked by his successor Gregory XIII (11 March, 1575).
From the time when Leo X recognized the Roman University or
"Sapienza" (5 November, 1513; by the decree "Dum suavissimos")
he transferred to it the old theological school of the papal
palace. The Master of the Sacred Palace became the president of
the new theological faculty. The other members were the pope's
grand sacristan (an Augustinian), the commissary of the Holy
Office (a Dominican), the procurators general of the five
Mendicant Orders, i.e. Dominican, Franciscan (Conventual),
Augustinian, Carmelite, and Servite, and the professors who
succeeded to the ancient Lectors of the Sacred Palace. Sixtus V
is by some regarded as the founder of this college or faculty,
but he may have only given its definite form. He is said to have
confirmed the prerogative enjoyed by the Master of the Sacred
Palace of conferring all degrees of philosophy and theology.
Instances of papal diplomas implying this power of the Master of
the Sacred Palace occur in the "Bullarium" passim (e.g. of
Innocent IV, 6 June, 1406). The presidential authority of the
Master of the Sacred Palace over this, the greatest theological
faculty in Rome, was confirmed by Leo XII in 1824.
Since the occupation of Rome in 1870 the Sapienza has been
laicized and turned into a state university, so that on the
special occasions when the Master of the Sacred Palace holds an
examination, e.g. for the purpose of examining all that are to
be appointed to sees in Italy, or again of conferring the title
of S.T.D., he does so, with the assistance of the high
dignitaries just mentioned, in his apartment in the Vatican. He
is also examiner in the concursus for parishes in Rome which are
held in the Roman Vicariate. Before Eugene IV issued the Bull
referred to above, the Master of the Sacred Palace was in
processions, etc., the dignitary immediately under the Apostolic
subdeacons, but when this pope raised the auditors of the Rota
to the rank of Apostolic subdeacons, he gave the Master of the
Sacred Palace the place immediately next to the dean who was in
charge of the papal mitre. In 1655, Alexander VII put the other
auditors of the Rota above the Master of the Sacred Palace. This
was done, according to Cardinal de Luca, solely because one
white and black habit looked badly among several violet
soutanes. One of the occasional duties of the Master of the
Sacred Palace is performed in conjunction with the auditors of
the Rota; namely to watch over the three apertures or "drums"
through which during a conclave the cardinals receive all
communications. In papal processions, the Master of the Sacred
Palace walks next to the auditors, immediately behind the bearer
of the tiara.
Though he has, as we have seen, gradually lost some of his
ancient authority and rank, nevertheless at the present day the
Master of the Sacred Palace is a very high official. He is one
of the three Palatine prelates (the others being the Maggiordomo
and the Grand Almoner) to whom as to bishops, the papal guards
present arms. He is always addressed, even by cardinals, as
"Most Reverend". In the Dominican Order he ranks next to the
general, ex-general, and vicar-general. He is ex-officio
consultor of the Holy Office, prelate-consultor of Rites, and
perpetual assistant of the Index. He is consultor of the
Biblical Commission, and is frequently consulted on various
matters by the pope as his theologian. His offical audience
occurs once a fortnight. The offical apartment of the Master of
the Sacred Palace was in the Quirinal, and until recently it
contained the unbroken series of portraits of the Masters of the
Sacred Palace, from St. Dominic down. These frescoes have been
effaced by the present occupants of the Quirinal, but copies of
them are to be seen in the temporary apartment of the Master of
the Sacred Palace in the Vatican.
Bullarium O.P., VIII (Rome, 1730-1740); MSS. in Vatican,
Dominican Order, and Minerva Archives; ANTONIUS, Chronicon, III
(Lyons, 1586); MALVENDA, Annales Ordinis Praedicatorum (Naples,
1627); fontANA, Syllabus Magistrorum Sacri Palatii Apostolici
(Rome, 1663); DE LUCA, Romanae Curiae Relatio (Cologne, 1683);
CATALANUS, De Magistro Sacri Palatii Apostolici libri duo (Rome,
1761); QUETIF-ECHARD, Scriptor. Ordinis Praedicatorum (Paris,
1719); CARAFFA, De Gymnasio (Rome, 1751), 135-145; RENAZZI,
Storia dell' Universita Romana, etc. (Rome, 1803-1806), passim;
MORTIER, Histoire des Maitres Generaux de l'Ordre des Freres
Precheurs (Paris, 1903, in progress); BATTANDIER, Annuaire Pont.
Cath. (1901), 473-482.
REGINALD WALSH
Bartholomew Mastrius
Bartholomew Mastrius
Franciscan, philosopher and theologian, born near Forli, at
Meldola, ltaly, in 1602; died 3 January, 1673. He was one of the
most prominent writers of his time on philosophy and theology.
He received his early education at Cesena, and took degrees at
the University of Bologna. He also frequented the Universities
of Padua and Rome before assuming the duties of lecturer. He
acquired a profound knowledge of scholastic philosophy and
theology, being deeply versed in the writings of Scotus. He was
an open-minded and independent scholar. As a controversialist he
was harsh and arrogant towards his opponents, mingling invective
with his arguments. His opinions on some philosophical questions
were fiercely combatted by many of his contemporaries and
especially by Matthew Ferchi and the Irish Franciscan, John
Ponce. When presenting the second volume of his work on the
"Sentences" to Alexander VII, to whom he had dedicated it, the
pope asked him where he had learned to treat his opponent Ferchi
in such a rough manner: Mastrius answered, "From St. Augustine
and St. Jerome, who in defence of their respective opinions on
the interpretation of Holy Scripture fought hard and not without
reason": the pope smilingly remarked, "From such masters other
things could be learned". Ponce in his treatise on Logic holds
that with qualifying explanations God may be included in the
Categories. Mastrius in combatting this opinion
characteristically says, "Hic Pontius male tractat Deum sicut et
alter". Mastrius had a well-ordered intellect which is seen in
the clearness and precision with which he sets forth the
subject-matter of discussion. His arguments for and against a
proposition show real critical power and are expressed in
accurate and clear language. His numerous quotations from
ancient and contemporary authors and various schools of thought
are a proof of his extensive reading. His works shed light on
some of the difficult questions in Scotistic philosophy and
theology. His "Philosophy" in five volumes folio, his
"Commentaries" on the "Sentences" in four volumes, and his Moral
Theology "ad mentem S. Bonaventurae" in one volume were all
published in Venice.
GREGORY CLEARY
Mataco Indians
Mataco Indians
(Or Mataguayo).
A group of wide tribes of very low culture, ranging over a great
part of the Chaco region, about the headwaters of the Vermejo
and the Picomayo, in the Argentine province of Salta and the
Bolivian province of Tarija, and noted for the efforts made by
Jesuit and Franciscan missionaries in their behalf in the
seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. The group consists, or
formerly consisted, of about a dozen tribes speaking the same
language with slight dialectic differences, and together
constituting a distinct linguistic stock, the Matacoan or
Mataguayan, which, however, Quevedo suspects to be connected to
the Quaycuran stock, to which belong the Toba, Macobi, and the
famous Abipon tribes. Of the Matacoan group, the principle
tribes were the Mataco, Mataguayo, and Vejoz. At present the
names in most general use are Mataco in Argentina and Nocten
(corrupted from the Chiriguano name) in Bolivia. From 60,000
(estimated) in the mission period they are now reduced to about
20,000 souls. In 1690, Father Arce, from the Jesuit college of
Tarija, attempted the first mission among the Mataguayo and
Chiriguano, but with little result, owing to their wandering
habit. "Houses and churches were built, but the natives poured
in and out, like water through a bottomless barrel", and at
last, weary of the remonstrances of the missionaries, burned the
missions, murdered several of the priests, and drove the others
out of the country. At a later period, in 1756, the Jesuit
mission of San Ignacio de Ledesma on the Rio Grande, a southern
head stream of the Vermejo, was founded for Toba and Mataguayo,
of whom 600 were enrolled here at the time of the expulsion of
the order in 1767.
About the end of the eighteenth century, the Franciscans of
Tarija undertook to restore the mission work in the Chaco,
founding a number of establishments, among which were Selenas,
occupied by Mataguayo and Chiriguani, and Centa (now Oran, Salta
province), occupied by Mataguayo and the Vejoz, the two missions
in 1799 containing nearly 900 Indians, with 7300 cattle. With
the decline of the Spanish power these missions also fell into
decay, and the Indians scattered to their forests. In 1895
father Gionnecchini, passing by the place of the old Centa
mission, found a cattle coral where the church had been. An
interesting account of the present condition of the wild Mataco
is quoted by Quevedo from a letter by Father Alejandro Corrado,
Franciscan, Tarija. Their houses are light brush structures,
scattered through the forest, hardly high enough to allow of
standing upright, and are abandoned for others set up in another
place, as often as insects or accumulation of filth make
necessary. The only furniture is a wooden mortar with a few
earthen pots and some skins for sleeping. Men and women shave
their heads and wear a single garment about the lower part of
the body. The men also pluck out the beard and paint the face
and body. They live chiefly upon fish and the fruit of the
algarroba, a species of mesquit or honey-locust, but will eat
anything that is not poisonous, even rats and grasshoppers. From
the algarroba they prepare an intoxicating liquor which rouses
them to a fighting frenzy. Their principal ceremony is in
connection with the ripening of the algarroba, when the priests
in fantastic dress go about the trees, dancing and singing at
the top of their voices to the sound of a wooden drum, keeping
up the din day and night. A somewhat similar ceremony takes
place when a young girl arrives at puberty. Everything is in
common, and a woman divides her load of fruits or roots with her
neighbours without even a word of thanks. They recognize no
authority, even of parents over their children. The men occupy
themselves with fishing or occasional hunting, their arms being
the bow or club. The women do practically all the other work.
Marriage is simple and at the will of the young people, the wife
usually going to live with her husband's relatives. Polygamy and
adultery are infrequent, but divorce is easy. The woman receives
little attention in pregnancy or childbirth, but on the other
hand the father conforms to the couvade. Children are named when
two or three years old. Abortion is very frequent; infanticide
more rare, but the infant is often buried alive on the breast of
the dead mother.
Disease is driven off by the medicine men with singing and
shaking of rattles. They believe in a good spirit to whom they
seem to pay no worship; and, in a malevolent night spirit whom
they strive to propitiate. They believe that the soul, after
death, enters into the body of some animal. The best work upon
the language of the Mataco tribes is the grammar and dictionary
of the Jesuit missionary, Father Joseph Araoz, with Quevedo's
studies of the Nocten and Vejoz dialects, from various sources.
ARAOZ, Grammar and Dictionary; BRINTON, American Race (New York,
1891); CHARLEVOIX, Hist. du Paraguay, 3 vols. (Paris, 1756),
Eng. tr., 2 vols. (London, 1769); HERVAS, Catalogo de la
Lenguas, I (Madrid, 1800); LOZANO, Descrepcion Chorographica del
Gran Chaco (Cordoba, 1733); PAGE, La Plata, the Argentine
Confederation and Paraguay (New York, 1859); PELLESCHI, Otto
Mesi nel Gran Ciacco (Florence, 1881), tr., Eight Months on the
Gran Chaco (London, 1886); QUEVEDO, Lenguas Argentinas (Dialecto
Nocten, Dialecto Vejoz) in Bol. del Instituto Geografico
Argentino, XVI-XVII (Buenos Aires, 1896).
JAMES MOONEY
Mater
Mater
A titular bishopric in the province of Byzantium, mentioned as a
free city by Pliny under the name of Matera (Hist. natur., V,
iv, 5). Mgr. Toulotte ("Geographie de l'Afrique chretienne",
proconsulaire, 197) cites only two occupants of this see:
Rusticianus, who died shortly before 411, and Quintasius, who
succeeded him. Gams (Series episcoporum, 467) mentions four:
Rusticianus, Cultasius for Quintasius, Adelfius in 484, and
Victor about the year 556. Mater is now known as Mateur, a small
town of 4000 inhabitants, in great part Christian, and is
situated in Tunis. The modern town is encircled with a wall,
with three gates; it is situated on the railway from Tunis to
Bizerta, not far from the lake to which it has given its name.
S. VAILHE
Materialism
Materialism
As the word itself signifies, Materialism is a philosophical
system which regards matter as the only reality in the world,
which undertakes to explain every event in the universe as
resulting from the conditions and activity of matter, and which
thus denies the existence of God and the soul. It is
diametrically opposed to Spiritualism and Idealism, which, in so
far as they are one-sided and exclusive, declare that everything
in the world is spiritual, and that the world and even matter
itself are mere conceptions or ideas in the thinking subject.
Materialism is older than Spiritualism, if we regard the
development of philosophy as beginning in Greece. The ancient
Indian philosophy, however, is idealistic; according to it there
is only one real being, Brahma; everything else is appearance,
Maja. In Greece the first attempts at philosophy were more or
less materialistic; they assumed the existence of a single
primordial matter -- water, earth, fire, air -- or of the four
elements from which the world was held to have developed.
Materialism was methodically developed by the Atomists. The
first and also the most important systematic Materialist was
Democritus, the "laughing philosopher". He taught that out of
nothing comes nothing; that everything is the result of
combination and division of parts (atoms); that these atoms,
separated by empty spaces, are infinitely numerous and varied.
Even to man he extended his cosmological Materialism, and was
thus the founder of Materialism in the narrow sense, that is the
denial of the soul. The soul is a complex of very fine, smooth,
round, and fiery atoms: these are highly mobile and penetrate
the whole body, to which they impart life. Empedocles was not a
thorough-going Materialist, although be regarded the four
elements with love and hatred as the formative principles of the
universe, and refused to recognize a spiritual Creator of the
world. Aristotle reproaches the Ionian philosophers in general
with attempting to explain the evolution of the world without
the Nous (intelligence); he regarded Protagoras, who first
introduced a spiritual principle, as a sober man among the
inebriated.
The Socratic School introduced a reaction against Materialism. A
little later, however, Materialism found a second Democritus in
Epicurus, who treated the system in greater detail and gave it a
deeper foundation. The statement that nothing comes from
nothing, he supported by declaring that otherwise everything
might come from everything. This argument is very pertinent,
since if there were nothing, nothing could come into existence,
i.e. if there were no cause. An almighty cause can of itself
through its power supply a substitute for matter, which we
cannot create but can only transform. Epicurus further asserted
that bodies alone exist; only the void is incorporeal. He
distinguished, however, between compound bodies and simple
bodies or atoms, which are absolutely unchangeable. Since space
is infinite, the atoms must likewise be infinitely numerous.
This last deduction is not warranted, since, even in infinite
space, the bodies might be limited in number -- in fact, they
must be, as otherwise they would entirely fill space and
therefore render movement impossible. And yet Epicurus ascribes
motion to the atoms, i.e. constant motion downwards. Since many
of them deviate from their original direction, collisions result
and various combinations are formed. The difference between one
body and another is due solely to different modes of atomic
combination; the atoms themselves have no quality, and differ
only in size, shape, and weight. These materialistic
speculations contradict directly the universally recognized laws
of nature. Inertia is an essential quality of matter, which
cannot set itself in motion, cannot of itself fix the direction
of its motion, least of all change the direction of the motion
once imparted to it. The existence of all these capabilities in
matter is assumed by Epicurus: the atoms fall downwards, before
there is either "up" or "down"; they have weight, although there
is as yet no earth to lend them heaviness by its attraction.
From the random clash of the atoms could result only confusion
and not order, least of all that far-reaching design which is
manifested in the arrangement of the world, especially in
organic structures and mental activities. However, the soul and
its origin present no difficulty to the Materialist. According
to him the soul is a kind of vapour scattered throughout the
whole body and mixed with a little heat. The bodies surrounding
us give off continually certain minute particles which penetrate
to our souls through our sense-organs and excite mental images.
With the dissolution of the body, the corporeal soul is also
dissolved. This view betrays a complete misapprehension of the
immaterial nature of psychical states as opposed to those of the
body -- to say nothing of the childish notion of
sense-perception, which modern physiology can regard only with
an indulgent smile.
Epicurean Materialism received poetic expression and further
development in the didactic poem of the Roman Lucretius. This
bitter opponent of the gods, like the modern representatives of
Materialism, places it in outspoken opposition to religion. His
cosmology is that of Epicurus; but Lucretius goes much further,
inasmuch as he really seeks to give an explanation of the order
in the world, which Epicurus referred unhesitatingly to mere
chance. Lucretius asserts that it is just one of the infinitely
numerous possibilities in the arrangement of the atoms; the
present order was as possible as any other. He takes particular
pains to disprove the immortality of the soul, seeking thus to
dispel the fear of death, which is the cause of so much care and
crime. The soul (anima) and the mind (animus) consist of the
smallest, roundest, and most mobile atoms. That "feeling is an
excitement of the atoms", he lays down as a firmly established
principle. He says: "When the flavour of the wine vanishes, or
the odour of the ointment passes away in the air, we notice no
diminution of weight. Even so with the body when the soul has
disappeared." He overlooks the fact that the flavour and odour
are not necessarily lost, even though we cannot measure them.
That they do not perish is now certain and, we must therefore
conclude, still less does the spiritual soul cease to exist.
However, the soul is no mere odour of a body, but a being with
real activity; consequently, it must itself be real, and
likewise distinct from the body, since thought and volition are
incorporeal activities, and not movement which, according to
Lucretius at least, is the only function of the atoms.
Christianity reared a mighty dam against Materialism, and it was
only with the return to antiquity in the so-called restoration
of the sciences that the Humanists again made it a powerful
factor. Giordano Bruno, the Pantheist, was also a Materialist:
"Matter is not without its forms, but contains them all; and
since it carries what is wrapped up in itself, it is in truth
all nature and the mother of all the living." But the classical
age of Materialism began with the eighteenth century, when de la
Mettrie (1709-51) wrote his "Histoire naturelle de l'ame" and
"L'homme machine." He holds that all that feels must be
material: "The soul is formed, it grows and decreases with the
organs of the body, wherefore it must also share in the latter's
death" -- a palpable fallacy, since even if the body is only the
soul's instrument, the soul must be affected by the varying
conditions of the body. In the case of this Materialist we find
the moral consequences of the system revealed without disguise.
In his two works, "La Volupte" and "L'art de jouer", he
glorifies licentiousness. The most famous work of this period is
the "Systeme de la nature" of Baron Holbach (1723-89). According
to this work there exists nothing but nature, and all beings,
which are supposed to be beyond nature, are creatures of the
imagination. Man is a constituent part of nature; his moral
endowment is simply a modification of his physical constitution,
derived from his peculiar organization. Even Voltaire found
himself compelled to offer a determined opposition to these
extravagant attacks on everything spiritual.
In Germany Materialism was vigorously assailed, especially by
Leibniz (q.v.). As, however, this philosopher sought to replace
it with his doctrine of monads, an out-and-out spiritualistic
system, he did not give a real refutation. On the other hand,
Kant was supposed to have broken definitively the power of
Materialism by the so-called idealistic argument, which runs:
Matter is revealed to us only in consciousness; it cannot
therefore be the cause or the principle of consciousness. This
argument proves absolutely nothing against Materialism, unless
we admit that our consciousness creates matter, i.e. that matter
has no existence independent of consciousness. If consciousness
or the soul creates matter, the latter cannot impart existence
to the soul or to any psychical activity. Materialism would
indeed be thus utterly annihilated: there would be no matter.
But, if matter is real, it may possess all kinds of activities,
even psychical, as the Materialists aver. As long as the
impossibility of this is not demonstrated, Materialism is not
refuted. Idealism or Phenomenalism, which entirely denies the
existence of matter, is more absurd than Materialism. There is,
however, some truth in the Kantian reasoning. Consciousness or
the psychical is far better known to us than the material; what
matter really is, no science has yet made clear. The
intellectual or the psychical, on the other hand, is presented
immediately to our consciousness; we experience our thoughts,
volitions, and feelings; in their full clearness they stand
before the eye of the mind. From the Kantian standpoint a
refutation of Materialism is out of the question. To overcome it
we must show that the soul is an entity, independent of and
essentially distinct from the body, an immaterial substance;
only as such can it be immortal and survive the dissolution of
the body. For Kant, however, substance is a purely subjective
form of the understanding, by means of which we arrange our
experiences. The independence of the soul would thus not be
objective; it would be simply an idea conceived by us.
Immortality would also be merely a thought-product; this the
Materialists gladly admit, but they call it, in plainer terms, a
pure fabrication.
The German Idealists, Fichte, Hegel, and Schelling, seriously
espoused the Phenomenalism of Kant, declaring that matter, and,
in fact, the whole universe, is a subjective product. Thereby
indeed Materialism is entirely overcome, but the Kantian method
of refutation is reduced to absurdity. The reaction against this
extravagant Spiritualism was inevitable, and it resulted by a
sort of necessary consequence in the opposite extreme of
outspoken Materialism. Repelled by these fantastic views, so
contrary to all reality, men turned their whole energy to the
investigation of nature. The extraordinary success achieved in
this domain led many investigators to overestimate the
importance of matter, its forces, and its laws, with which they
believed they could explain even the spiritual. The chief
representatives of Materialism as a system during this period
are Buechner (1824-99), the author of "Kraft und Stoff"; K. Vogt
(1817-95), who held that thought is "secreted" by the brain, as
gall by the liver and urine by the kidneys: Czolbe (1817-73);
Moleschott, to whom his Materialism brought political fame. Born
on 9 August, 1822, at Herzogenbusch, North Brabant, he studied
medicine, natural science, and the philosophy of Hegel at
Heidelberg from 1842. After some years of medical practice in
Utrecht, he qualified as instructor in physiology and
anthropology at the University of Heidelberg. His writings,
especially his "Kreislauf des Lebens" (1852), created a great
sensation. On account of the gross materialism, which he
displayed both in his works and his lectures, he received a
warning from the academic senate by command of the Government,
whereupon he accepted in 1854 a call to the newly founded
University of Zuerich. In 1861 Cavour, the Italian premier,
granted him a chair at Turin, whence fifteen years later he was
called to the Sapienza in Rome, which owed its foundation to the
popes. Here death suddenly overtook him in 1893, and, just as he
had had burnt the bodies of his wife and daughter who had
committed suicide, he also appointed in his will that his own
body should be reduced to ashes. The most radical rejection of
everything ideal is contained in the revised work "Der Einzige
und sein Eigentum" (1845; 3rd ed., 1893) of Max Stirner, which
rejects everything transcending the particular Ego and its
self-will.
The brilliant success of the natural sciences gave Materialism a
powerful support. The scientist, indeed, is exposed to the
danger of overlooking the soul, and consequently of denying it.
Absorption in the study of material nature is apt to blind one
to the spiritual; but it is an evident fallacy to deny the soul,
on the ground that one cannot experimentally prove its existence
by physical means. Natural science oversteps its limits when it
encroaches on the spiritual domain and claims to pronounce there
an expert decision, and it is a palpable error to declare that
science demonstrates the non-existence of the soul. Various
proofs from natural science are of course brought forward by the
Materialists. The "closed system of natural causation" is
appealed to: experience everywhere finds each natural phenomenon
based upon another as its cause, and the chain of natural causes
would be broken were the same brought in. On the other hand,
Sigwart (1830-1904) justly observes that the soul has its share
in natural causation, and is therefore included in the system.
At most it could be deduced from this system that a pure spirit,
that God could not interfere in the course of nature; but this
cannot be proved by either experience or reason. On the contrary
it is clear that the Author of nature can interfere in its
course, and history informs us of His many miraculous
interventions. In any case it is beyond doubt that our bodily
conditions are influenced by our ideas and volitions, and this
influence is more clearly perceived by us than the causality of
fire in the production of heat. We must therefore reject as
false the theory of natural causation, if this means the
exclusion of spiritual causes.
But modern science claims to have given positive proof that in
the human body there is no place for the soul. The great
discovery by R. Mayer (1814-78), Joule (1818-89), and Helmholtz
(1821-94) of the conservation of energy proves that energy
cannot disappear in nature and cannot originate there. But the
soul could of itself create energy, and there would also be
energy lost, whenever an external stimulus influenced the soul
and gave rise to sensation, which is not a form of energy. Now
recent experiment has shown that the energy in the human body is
exactly equivalent to the nutriment consumed. In these facts,
however, there is absolutely nothing against the existence of
the soul. The law of the conservation of energy is an empirical
law, not a fundamental principle of thought; it is deduced from
the material world and is based on the activity of matter. A
body cannot set itself in motion, can produce no force; it must
be impelled by another, which in the impact loses its own power
of movement. This is not lost, but is changed into the new
movement. Thus, in the material world, motion, which is really
kinetic energy, can neither originate nor altogether cease. This
law does not hold good for the immaterial world, which is not
subject to the law of inertia. That our higher intellectual
activities are not bound by the law is most plainly seen in our
freedom of will, by which we determine ourselves either to move
or to remain at rest. But the intellectual activities take place
with the cooperation of the sensory processes; and, since these
latter are functions of the bodily organs, they are like them
subject to the law of inertia. They do not enter into activity
without some stimulus; they cannot stop their activity without
some external influence. They are, therefore, subject to the law
of the conservation of energy, whose applicability to the human
body, as shown by biological experiment, proves nothing against
the soul. Consequently, while even without experiment, one must
admit the law in the case of sentient beings, it can in no wise
affect a pure spirit or an angel. The "Achilles" of
materialistic philosophers, therefore, proves nothing against
the soul. It was accordingly highly opportune when the eminent
physiologist, Dubois Reymond (1818-96), called a vigorous halt
to his colleague by his "Ignoramus et Ignorabimus". In his
lectures, "Ueber die Grenzen der Naturerkenntniss" (Leipzig,
1872), he shows that feeling, consciousness, etc., cannot be
explained from the atoms. He errs indeed in declaring
permanently inexplicable everything for which natural science
cannot account; the explanation must be furnished by philosophy.
Even theologians have defended Materialism. Thus, for example,
F.D. Strauss in his work "Der alte und neue Glaube" (1872)
declares openly for Materialism, and even adopts it as the basis
of his religion; the material universe with its laws, although
they occasionally crush us, must be the object of our
veneration. The cultivation of music compensates him for the
loss of all ideal goods. Among the materialistic philosophers of
this time, Ueberweg (1826-71), author of the well-known "History
of Philosophy", deserves mention; it is noteworthy that he at
first supported the Aristotelean teleology, but later fell away
into materialistic mechanism. There is indeed considerable
difficulty in demonstrating mathematically the final object of
nature; with those to whom the consideration of the marvellous
wisdom displayed in its ordering does not bring the conviction
that it cannot owe its origin to blind physical forces, proofs
will avail but little. To us, indeed, it is inconceivable how
any one can overlook or deny the evidences of design and of the
adaptation of means for the attainment of manifold ends.
The teleological question, so awkward for Materialism, was
thought to be finally settled by Darwinism which, as K. Vogt
cynically expressed it, God was shown the door. The blind
operation of natural forces and laws, without spiritual
agencies, was held to explain the origin of species and their
purposiveness as well. Although Darwin himself was not a
Materialist, his mechanical explanation of teleology brought
water to the mill of Materialism, which recognizes only the
mechanism of the atoms. This evolution of matter from the
protozoon to man, announced from university chairs as the result
of science, was eagerly taken up by the social democrats, and
became the fundamental tenet of their conception of the world
and of life. Although officially socialists disown their hatred
of religion, the rejection of the higher destiny of man and the
consequent falling back on the material order serve them most
efficiently in stirring up the deluded and discontented masses.
Against this domination of Materialism among high and low there
set in towards the end of the nineteenth century a reaction,
which was due in no small measure to the alarming translation of
the materialistic theory into practice by the socialists and
anarchists. At bottom, however, it is but another instance of
what the oldest experience shows: the line of progress is not
vertical but spiral. Overstraining in one direction starts a
rebound in the opposite extreme. The spiritual will not be
reduced to the material, but it frequently commits the error of
refusing to tolerate the coexistence of matter.
Thus at present the reaction against Materialism leads in many
instances to an extreme Spiritualism or Phenomenalism, which
regards matter merely as a projection of the soul. Hence also
the widely-echoed cry: "Back to Kant". Kant regarded matter as
entirely the product of consciousness, and this view is
outspokenly adopted by L. Busse, who, in his work "Geist und
Koerper, Seele und Leib" (Leipzig, 1903), earnestly labours to
discredit Materialism. He treats exhaustively the relations of
the psychical to the physical, refutes the so-called
psycho-physical parallelism, and decides in favour of the
interaction of soul and body. His conclusion is the complete
denial of matter. "Metaphysically the world-picture changes . .
. . The corporeal world as such disappears -- it is a mere
appearance for the apprehending mind -- and is succeeded by
something spiritual. The idealistic-spiritualistic metaphysics,
whose validity we here tacitly assume without further
justification, recognizes no corporeal but only spiritual being.
'All reality is spiritual', is its verdict" (p. 479).
How little Materialism has to fear from Kantian rivalry is
plainly shown, among others, by the natural philosopher Uexk ll.
In the "Neue Rundschau" of 1907, Umrisse einer neuen
Weltanschauung, he most vigorously opposes Darwinism and
Haeckelism, but finally rejects with Kant the substantiality of
the soul, and even falls back into the Materialism which he so
severely condemns. He says: "The disintegrating influence of
Haeckelism on the spiritual life of the masses comes, not from
the consequences which his conception of eternal things calls
forth, but from the Darwinian thesis that there is no purpose in
nature. Really, one might suppose that on the day, when the
great discovery of the descent of man from the ape was made the
call went forth: 'Back to the Ape'." The walls, which confine
Materialism, still stand in all their firmness: it is impossible
to explain the purposive character of life from material
forces." "We are so constituted that we are capable of
recognizing certain purposes with our intellect, while others we
long for and enjoy through our sense of beauty. One general plan
binds all our spiritual and emotional forces into a unity."
"This view of life Haeckel seeks to replace by his senseless
talk about cell-souls and soul-cells, and thinks by his boyish
trick to annihilate the giant Kant. Chamberlain's words on
Haeckelism will find an echo in the soul of every educated
person: 'It is not poetry, science, or philosophy, but a
still-born bastard of all three'." But what does the "Giant
Kant" teach? That we ourselves place the purpose in the things,
but that it is not in the things! This view is also held by
Materialists. Uexk ll finds the refutation of Materialism in the
"empirical scheme of the objects", which is formed from our
sense-perceptions. This is for him, indeed, identical with the
Bewegungsmelodie (melody of motion), to which he reduces
objects. Thus again there is no substance but only motion, which
Materialism likewise teaches. We shall later find the Kantian
Uexk ll among the outspoken Materialists.
Philosophers of another tendency endeavour to refute Materialism
by supposing everything endowed with life and soul. To this
class belong Fechner, Wundt, Paulsen, Haeckel, and the botanist
Franc, who ascribe intelligence even to plants. One might well
believe that this is a radical remedy for all materialistic
cravings. The pity is that Materialists should be afforded an
opportunity for ridicule by such a fiction. That brute matter,
atoms, electrons should possess life is contrary to all
experience. It is a boast of modern science that it admits only
what is revealed by exact observation; but the universal and
unvarying verdict of observation is that, in the inorganic
world, everything shows characteristics opposite to those which
life exhibits. It is also a serious delusion to believe that one
can explain the human soul and its unitary consciousness on the
supposition of cell-souls. A number of souls could never have
one and the same consciousness. Consciousness and every psychic
activity are immanent, they abide in the subject and do not
operate outwardly; hence each individual soul has its own
consciousness, and of any other knows absolutely nothing. A
combination of several souls into one consciousness is thus
impossible. But, even if it were possible, this composite
consciousness would have a completely different content from the
cell-souls, since it would be a marvel if all these felt,
thought, and willed exactly the same. In this view immortality
would be as completely done away with as it is in Materialism.
We have described this theory as an untenable fiction. R. Semon,
however, undertakes to defend the existence of memory in all
living beings in his work "Die Mneme als erhaltendes Prinzip im
Wechsel des organischen Geschehens" (Leipzig, 1905). He says:
"The effect of a stimulus on living substance continues after
the stimulation, it has an engraphic effect. This latter is
called the engram of the corresponding stimulus, and the sum of
the engrams, which the organism inherits or acquires during its
life, is the mneme, or memory in the widest sense." Now, if by
this word the persistence of psychic and corporeal states were
alone signified, there would be little to urge against this
theory. But by memory is understood a psychic function, for
whose presence in plants and minerals not the slightest plea can
be offered. The persistence is even more easily explained in the
case of inorganic nature. This Hylozoism, which, as Kant rightly
declares, is the death of all science, is also called the
"double aspect theory" (Zweiseitentheorie). Fechner indeed
regards the material as only the outer side of the spiritual.
The relation between them is that of the convex side of a curve
to the concave; they are essentially one, regarded now from
without an again from within -- the same idea expressed in
different words. By this explanation Materialism is not overcome
but proclaimed. For as to the reality of matter no sensible man
can doubt; consequently, if the spiritual is merely a special
aspect of matter, it also must be material. The convex side of a
ring is really one thing with the concave; there is but the same
ring regarded from two different sides. Thus Fechner, in spite
of all his disclaimers of Materialism, must deny the immortality
of the soul, since in the dissolution of the body the soul must
also perish, and he labours to no effect when he tries to
bolster up the doctrine of survival with all kinds of fantastic
ideas.
Closely connected with this theory is the so-called
"psycho-physical parallelism", which most modern psychologists
since Fechner, especially Wundt and Paulsen, energetically
advocate. This emphasizes so strongly the spirituality of the
soul that it rejects as impossible any influence of the soul on
the body, and thus makes spiritual and bodily activities run
side by side (parallel) without affecting each other. Wundt,
indeed, goes so far as to make the whole world consist of
will-units, and regards matter as mechanized spiritual activity.
Paulsen, on the other hand, endeavours to explain the
concurrence of the two series of activities by declaring that
the material processes of the body are the reflection of the
spiritual. One might well think that there could not be a more
emphatic denial of Materialism. Yet this exaggerated
Spiritualism and Idealism agrees with the fundamental dogma of
the Materialists in denying the substantiality and immortality
of the soul. It asserts that the soul is nothing else than the
aggregate of the successive internal activities without any
psychical essence. This declaration leads inevitably to
Materialism, because activity without an active subject is
inconceivable; and, since the substantiality of the soul is
denied, the body must be the subject of the spiritual
activities, as otherwise it would be quite impossible that to
certain physical impressions there should correspond
perceptions, volitions, and movements. In any case this
exaggerated Spiritualism, which no intelligent person can
accept, cannot be regarded as a refutation of Materialism. Apart
from Christian philosophy no philosophical system has yet
succeeded in successfully combatting Materialism. One needs but
a somewhat accurate knowledge of the recent literature of
natural science and philosophy to be convinced that the
"refutation" of Materialism by means of the latest Idealism is
idle talk. Thus, Ostwald proclaims his doctrine of energy the
refutation of Materialism, and, in his "Vorlesungen ber
Naturphilosophie", endeavours "to fill the yawning chasm, which
since Descartes gapes between spirit and matter", by
subordinating the ideas of matter and spirit under the concept
of energy. Thus, consciousness also is energy, the nerve-energy
of the brain. He is inclined "to recognize consciousness as an
essential characteristic of the energy of the central organ,
just as space is an essential characteristic of mechanical
energy and time of kinetic energy." Is not this Materialism pure
and simple?
Entirely materialistic also is the widely accepted physiological
explanation of psychical activities, especially of the feelings,
such as fear, anger etc. This is defended (e.g.) by Uexkuell,
whom we have already referred to as a vigorous opponent of
Materialism. He endeavours to found, or at least to illustrate
this by the most modern experiments. In his work "Der Kampf um
die Tierseele" (1903), he says: "Suppose that with the help of
refined roentgen rays we could project magnified on a screen in
the form of movable shadow-waves the processes in the nervous
system of man. According to our present knowledge, we might thus
expect the following. We observe the subject of the experiment,
when a bell rings near by, and we see the shadow on the screen
(representing the wave of excitation) hurry along the auditory
nerve to the brain. We follow the shadow into the cerebrum, and,
if the person makes a movement in response to the sound,
centrifugal shadows are also presented to our observation. This
experiment would be in no way different from any physical
experiment of a similar nature, except that in the case of the
brain with its intricate system of pathways the course of the
stimulus and the transformation of the accumulated energy would
necessarily form a very complicated and confused picture." But
what will be thereby proved or even illustrated? Even without r
ntgen rays we know that, in the case of hearing, nerve waves
proceed to the brain, and that from the brain motor effects pass
out to the peripheral organs. But these effects are mere
movements, not psychical perception; for consciousness attests
that sensory perception, not to speak of thought and volition,
is altogether different from movements, in fact the very
opposite. We can think simultaneously of opposites (e. g.
existence and nonexistence, round and angular), and these
opposites must be simultaneously present in our consciousness,
for otherwise we could not compare them, nor perceive and
declare their oppositeness. Now, it is absolutely impossible
that a nerve or an atom of the brain should simultaneously
execute opposite movements. And, not merely in the case of true
opposites, but also in the judgment of every distinction, the
nerve elements must simultaneously have different movements, of
different rapidity and in different directions.
An undisguised Materialism is espoused by A. Kann in his
"Naturgeschichte der Moral und die Physik des Denkens", with the
sub-title "Der Idealismus eines Materialisten" (Vienna and
Leipzig, 1907). He says: "To explain physically the complicated
processes of thought, it is above all necessary that the
necessity of admitting anything 'psychical' be eliminated. Our
ideas as to what is good and bad are for the average man so
intimately connected with the psychical that it is a prime
necessity to eliminate the psychical from our ideas of morality,
etc. Only when pure, material science has built up on its own
foundations the whole structure of our morals and ethics can one
think of elaborating for unbiased readers what I call the
'Physics of Thinking'. To prepare the ground for the new
building, one must first 'clear away the debris of ancient
notions', that is 'God, prayer, immortality (the soul)'." The
reduction of psychical life to physics is actually attempted by
J. Pikler in his treatise "Physik des Seelenlebens" (Leipzig,
1901). He converses with a pupil of the highest form, at first
in a very childish way, but finally heavy guns are called into
action. "That all the various facts, all the various phenomena
of psychical life, all the various states of consciousness are
the self-preservation of motion, has not yet, I think, been
explained by any psychologist." Such is indeed the case, for,
generally speaking, gross Materialism has been rejected.
Materialism refers psychical phenomena to movements of the nerve
substance; but self-preservation of motion is motion, and
consequently this new psycho-physics is pure Materialism. In any
case, matter cannot "self-preserve" its motion; motion persists
on its own account in virtue of the law of the conservation of
energy. Therefore, according to this theory, all matter ought to
exhibit psychical phenomena.
Still more necessary and simple was the evolution of the world
according to J. Lichtneckert (Neue wissenschaftl. Lebenslehre
der Weltalls, Leipzig, 1903). His "Ideal oder
Selbstzweckmaterialismus als die absolute Philosophie" (Ideal or
End-in-itself Materialism as the Absolute Philosophy) offers
"the scientific solution of all great physical, chemical,
astronomical, and physiological world-riddles." Let us select a
few ideas from this new absolutist philosophy. "That God and
matter are absolutely identical notions, was until to-day
unknown." "Hitherto Materialism investigated the external life
of matter, and Idealism its internal life. From the fusion of
these two conceptions of life and the world, which since the
earliest times have walked their separate ways and fought each
other, issues the present 'Absolute Philosophy.' Heretofore
Materialism has denied, as a fundamental error, teleology or the
striving for an end, and hence also the spiritual or psychical
qualities of matter, while Idealism has denied the materiality
of the soul or of God. Consequently, a complete and harmonious
world-theory could not be reached. The Ideal or End-in-itself
Materialism, or Monism, is the crown or acme of all
philosophies, since in it is contained the absolute truth, to
which the leading intellects of all times have gradually and
laboriously contributed. Into it flow all philosophical and
religious systems, as streams into the sea." "Spirit or God is
matter, and, vice versa, matter is spirit or God. Matter is no
raw, lifeless mass, as was hitherto generally assumed, since all
chemico-physical processes are self-purposive. Matter, which is
the eternal, unending, visible, audible, weighable, measurable
etc. deity, is gifted with the highest evolutionary and
transforming spiritual or vital qualities, and indeed possesses
power to feel, will, think, and remember. All that exists is
matter or God. A non-material being does not exist. Even space
is matter. . ."
One needs only to indicate such fruits of materialistic science
to illustrate in their absurdity the consequences of the
pernicious conception of man and the universe known as
Materialism. But we cite these instances also as a positive
proof that the much-lauded victory of modern Idealism over
Materialism has no foundation in fact. To our own time may be
applied what the well-known historian of Materialism, Friedrich
Albert Lange (Geschichte des Materialismus u. Kritik seiner
Bedeutung in der Gegenwart), wrote in 1875: "The materialistic
strife of our day thus stands before us as a serious sign of the
times. To-day, as in the period before Kant and the French
Revolution, a general relaxation of philosophical effort, a
retrogression of ideas, is the basic explanation of the spread
of Materialism." What he says indeed of the relaxation of
philosophical effort is no longer true to-day; on the contrary,
seldom has there been so much philosophizing by the qualified
and the unqualified as at the beginning of the present and the
end of the last century. Much labour has been devoted to
philosophy and much has been accomplished, but, in the words of
St. Augustine, it is a case of magni gressus praeter viam (i.e.
long strides on the wrong road). We find simply philosophy,
without ideas, for Positivism, Empiricism, Pragmatism,
Psychologism, and the numerous other modern systems are all
enemies of ideas. Even Kant himself, whom Lange invokes as the
bulwark against Materialism, is very appropriately called by the
historian of Idealism, O. Willman, "the lad who throws stones at
ideas".
The idea, whose revival and development, as Lange expects, "will
raise mankind to a new level is, as we have shown, not to be
sought in non-Christian philosophy. Only a return to the
Christian view of the world, which is founded on Christian
philosophy and the teachings of the Socratic School, can prevent
the catastrophes prophesied by Lange, and perhaps raise mankind
to a higher cultural level. This philosophy offers a thorough
refutation of cosmological and anthropological Materialism, and
raises up the true Idealism. It shows that matter cannot of
itself be uncreated or eternal, which indeed may be deduced from
the fact that of itself it is inert, indifferent to rest and to
motion. But it must be either at rest or in motion if it exists;
if it existed of itself, in virtue of its own nature, it would
be also of itself in either of those conditions. If it were of
itself originally in motion, it could have never come to rest,
and it would not be true that its nature is indifferent to rest
and to motion and could be equally well in either of the two
conditions. With this simple argument the fundamental error is
confuted. An exhaustive refutation will be found in the present
author's writings: "Der Kosmos" (Paderborn, 1908); "Gott u. die
Sch pfung" (Ratisbon, 1910); "Die Theodizee" (4th ed., 1910);
"Lehrbuch der Apologetik", I (3rd ed., Muenster, 1903).
Anthropological Materialism is completely disproved by
demonstrating for psychical activities a simple, spiritual
substance distinct from the body -- i.e. the soul. Reason
assumes the existence of a simple being, since a multiplicity of
atoms can possess no unitary, indivisible thought, and cannot
compare two ideas or two psychical states. That which makes the
comparison must have simultaneously in itself both the states.
But a material atom cannot have two different conditions
simultaneously, cannot for example simultaneously execute two
different motions. Thus, it must be an immaterial being which
makes the comparison. The comparison itself, the perception of
the identity or difference, likewise the idea of necessity and
the idea of a pure spirit, are so abstract and metaphysical that
a material being cannot be their subject.
For a full refutation of anthropological Materialism see
Gutberlet, Lehrbuch der Psychologie (4th ed., Munster, 1904);
Idem, Der Kampf um die Seele (2 vols., 2nd ed., Mains, 1903).
Consult also Fabri, Briefe gegen den M. (Stuttgart, 1864); Prat,
L'impuissance du M. (Paris, 1868); Moigno, Le M. et la force
(2nd ed., Paris, 1873); Hertling, Ueber d. Grenzen d.
mechanischen Naturerkl rung (Bonn, 1875); Flint, Antitheistic
Theories (London, 1879); Bowne, Some Difficulties of M. in
Princeton Rev. (1881), pp. 344-372; Dressler, Der belebte u. der
unbelebte Stoff (Freiburg, 1883); Lilly, Materialism and
Morality in Fortnightly Review (1886), 573-94; (1887), 276-93;
Bossu, Refutation du mat rialisme (Louvain, 1890); Dreher, Der
M. eine Verirrung d. menschlichen Geistes (Berlin, 1892);
Corrance, Will M. be the Religion of the Future? In Dublin
Review (1899), 86-96; Courbet, Faillete du M. (Paris, 1899);
Fullerton, The Insufficiency of M. in Psychol. Review, IX
(1902), 156-73; Pesch, Die grossen Weltrathsel (Freiburg, 1883;
3rd ed., 1907); Stockl, Der M. gepruft in seinen Lehrsatzen u.
deren Consequenzen (Mainz, 1878). See also bibliography under
God, Soul, Spiritualism, World.
CONSTANTIN GUTBERLET
Feast of the Maternity of the Blessed Virgin Mary
Feast of the Maternity of the Blessed Virgin Mary
Second Sunday in October. The object of this feast is to
commemorate the dignity of the Mary as Mother of God. Mary is
truly the Mother of Christ, who in one person unites the human
and divine nature. This title was solemnly ratified by the
Council of Ephesus, 22 June, 431. The hymns used in the office
of the feast also allude to Mary's dignity as the spiritual
mother of men. The love of Mary for all mankind was that of a
mother, for she shared all the feelings of her son whose love
for men led Him to die for our redemption (Hunter, Dogm.Theo. 2,
578). The feast was first granted, on the petition of King
Joseph Manuel, to the dioceses of Portugal and to Brasil and
Algeria, 22 January, 1751, together with the feast of the Purity
of Mary, and was assigned to the first Sunday in May, dupl. maj.
In the following year both feasts were extended to the province
of Venice, 1778 to the kingdom of Naples, and 1807 to Tuscany.
At present the feast is not found in the universal calendar of
the church, but nearly all diocesan calendars have adopted it.
In the Roman Breviary the feast of the Maternity is commemorated
on the second, and the feast of the Purity on the third, Sunday
in October. In Rome, in the Church of S. Augustine, it is
celebrated as a dupl. 2. classis with an octave, in honour of
the miraculous statue of the Madonna del Parto by Sansovino.
This feast is also the titular feast of the Trinitarians under
the invocation of N. S. de los Remedios. At Mesagna in Apulia it
is kept 20 February in commemoration of the earthquake, 20
February 1743.
F. G. HOLWECK
Mathathias
Mathathias
The name of ten persons of the Bible, variant in both Hebrew and
Greek of Old Testament and in Greek of New Testament; uniform in
Vulgate. The meaning of the name is "gift of Jah", or "of
Jahweh" (cf. Theodoros). In the Hebrew, the first four of these
persons are called Mattith Jah (mtthyh).
(1) Mathathias (B. Thamathia, A. Maththathias), one of the sons
of Nebo who married an alien wife (I Est., x, 41) and later
repudiated her; he is called Mazitias in III Esd., ix, 35.
(2) Mathathias (Sept. Matthathias), one of the six who stood at
the right of Esdras while he read the law to the people (II
Esd., viii, 4).
(3) Mathathias (Sept. Matthathias), a Levite of Corite stock and
eldest son of Sellum; he had charge of the frying of cakes for
the temple-worship (I Par., ix, 31).
(4) Mathathias (Sept. Mattathias), a Levite, one of Asaph's
musicians before the ark (I Par., xvi, 5).
(5) Mathathias (I Par., xv, 18, 21; xxv, 3, 21; Heb. Mththyhw;
A. Mattathias in first three, Matthias in last; B. Immatathia in
first, Mettathias in second, Mattathias in last two), a Levite
of the sons of Idithun, one of the musicians who played and sung
before the ark on its entrance into Jerusalem, later the leader
of the fourteenth group of musicians of King David.
(6) Mathathias (I Mach., ii passim; xiv, 29; Sept. Mattathias),
the father of the five Machabees) who fought with the Seleucids
for Jewish liberty.
(7) Mathathias (I Mach., xi, 70), the son of Absalom and a
captain in the army of Jonathan the Machabee; together with
Judas the son of Calphi, he alone stood by Jonathan's side till
the tide of battle turned in the plain of Asor.
(8) Mathathias (I Mach., xvi, 14), a son of Simon the high
priest; he and his father and brother Judas were murdered by
Ptolemee, the son of Abobus, at Doch.
(9 and 10) Mathathias (Matthathias), two ancestors of Jesus
(Luke, iii, 25, 26).
Walter Drum
Theobald Mathew
Theobald Mathew
Apostle of Temperance, born at Thomastown Castle, near Cashel,
Tipperary, Ireland, 10 October, 1790; died at Queenstown, Cork,
8 December, 1856. His father was James Mathew, a gentleman of
good family; his mother was Anne, daughter of George Whyte of
Cappaghwhyte. At twelve he was sent to St. Canice's Academy,
Kilkenny. There he spent nearly seven years, during which time
he became acquainted with two Capuchin Fathers, who seem to have
influenced him deeply. In September, 1807, he went to Maynooth
College, and in the following year joined the Capuchin Order in
Dublin. Having made his profession and completed his studies, he
was ordained priest by Archbishop Murray of Dublin on Easter
Sunday, 1814. His first mission was in Kilkenny, where he spent
twelve months. He was then transferred to Cork where he spent
twenty-four years before beginning his great crusade against
intemperance. During these years he ministered in the "Little
Friary", and organized schools, industrial classes, and benefit
societies at a time when there was no recognized system of
Catholic education in Ireland. He also founded a good library,
and was foremost in every good work for the welfare of the
people. In 1830 he took a long lease of the Botanic Gardens as a
cemetery for the poor. Thousands, who died in the terrible
cholera of 1832, owed their last resting-place as well as relief
and consolation in their dying hours to Father Mathew. ln 1828
he was appointed Provincial of the Capuchin Order in Ireland a
position which he held for twenty-three years.
In 1838 came the crisis of his life. Drunkenness had become
widespread, and was the curse of all classes in Ireland.
Temperance efforts had failed to cope with the evil, and after
much anxious thought and prayer, in response to repeated appeals
from William Martin, a Quaker, Father Mathew decided to
inaugurate a total abstinence movement. On 10 April, 1838, the
first meeting of the Cork Total Abstinence Society was held in
his own schoolhouse. He presided, delivered a modest address,
and took the pledge himself. Then with the historic words, "Here
goes in the Name of God", he entered his signature in a large
book lying on the table.
About sixty followed his example that night and signed the book.
Meetings were held twice a week, in the evenings and after Mass
on Sundays. The crowds soon became so great that the schoolhouse
had to be abandoned and the Horse Bazaar, a building capable of
holding 4000, became the future meeting-place. Here, night after
night, Father Mathew addressed crowded assemblies. In three
months he had enrolled 25,000 in Cork alone; in five months the
number had increased to 130,000. The movement now assumed a new
phase. Father Mathew decided to go forth and preach his crusade
throughout the land. ln Dec., 1839, he went to Limerick and met
with an extraordinary triumph. Thousands came in from the
adjoining counties and from Connaught. In four days he gave the
pledge to 150,000. In the same month he went to Waterford, where
in three days he enrolled 80,000. In March, 1840, he enrolled
70,000 in Dublin. In Maynooth College he reaped a great harvest,
winning over 8 professors and 250 students, whilst in Maynooth
itself, and the neighbourhood, he gained 36,000 adherents. In
January, 1841, he went to Kells, and in two days and a half
enrolled 100,000. Thus in a few years he travelled through the
whole of Ireland, and in February, 1843, was able to write to a
friend in America: "I have now, with the Divine Assistance,
hoisted the banner of Temperance in almost every parish in
Ireland".
He did not confine himself to the preaching of temperance alone.
He spoke of the other virtues also, denounced crime of every
kind, and secret societies of every description. Crime
diminished as his movement spread, and neither crime nor secret
societies ever flourished where total abstinence had taken root.
He was of an eminently practical, as well as of a spiritual turn
of mind. Thackeray, who met him in Cork in 1842 wrote of him
thus: "Avoiding all political questions, no man seems more eager
than he for the practical improvement of this country. Leases
and rents, farming improvements, reading societies, music
societies -- he was full of these, and of his schemes of
temperance above all." Such glorious success having attended his
efforts at home, he now felt himself free to answer the earnest
invitations of his fellow-country-men in Great Britain. On 13
August, 1842, he reached Glasgow, where many thousands joined
the movement. In July, 1843, he arrived in England and opened
his memorable campaign in Liverpool. From Liverpool he went to
Manchester and Salford, and, having visited the chief towns of
Lancashire, he went on to Yorkshire, where he increased his
recruits by 200,000. His next visit was to London where he
enrolled, 74,000. During three months in England he gave the
pledge to 600,000.
He then returned to Cork where trials awaited him. In July,
l845, the first blight destroyed the potato crop, and in the
following winter there was bitter distress. Father Mathew was
one of the first to warn the government of the calamity which
was impending. Famine with all its horrors reigned throughout
the country during the years 1846-47. During those years, the
Apostle of Temperance showed himself more than ever the Apostle
of Charity. In Cork he organized societies for collecting and
distributing food supplies. He stopped the building of his own
church and gave the funds in charity. He spent 600 pounds
($3000) a month in relief, and used his influence in England and
America to obtain food and money. Ireland lost 2,000,000
inhabitants during those two years. All organization was broken
up, and the total abstinence movement received a severe blow. In
1847 Father Mathew was placed first on the list for the vacant
Bishopric of Cork, but Rome did not confirm the choice of the
clergy. In the early part of 1849, in response to earnest
invitations, he set sail for America. He visited New York,
Boston, New Orleans, Washington, Charlestown, Mobile, and many
other cities, and secured more than 500,000 disciples. After a
stay of two and a half years he returned to Ireland in Dec.,
1851. Men of all creeds and politics have borne important
testimony to the wonderful progress and the beneficial effects
of the movement he inaugurated. It is estimated that he gave the
total abstinence pledge to 7,000,000 people, and everyone admits
that in a short time he accomplished a great moral revolution.
O'Connell characterized it as "a mighty miracle", and often
declared that he would never have ventured to hold his Repeal
"monster meetings" were it not that he had the teetotalers "for
his policemen".
His remains rest beneath the cross in "Father Mathew's Cemetery"
at Queenstown. On 10 October, 1864, a fine bronze statue by
Foley was erected to his memory in Cork, and during his
centenary year a marble statue was erected in O'Connell Street,
Dublin. The influence of Father Mathew's movement is still felt
in many a country and especially in his own. In 1905 the
Archbishops and Bishops of Ireland assembled at Maynooth
unanimously decided to request the Capuchin Fathers to preach a
Temperance Crusade throughout the country. In carrying out this
work their efforts have been crowned with singular success. The
Father Mathew Memorial Hall, Dublin, is a centre of social,
educative, and temperance work, and is modelled on the
Temperance Institute, founded and maintained by the Apostle of
Temperance himself. The Father Mathew Hall, Cork, is doing
similar work. The Dublin Hall publishes a monthly magazine
called "The Father Mathew Record", which has a wide circulation.
A special organization called "The Young Irish Crusaders" was
founded in Jan., 1909, and its membership is already over
100,000.
FATHER AUGUSTINE
Francois-Desire Mathieu
Franc,ois-Desire Mathieu
Bishop and cardinal, born 27 May, 1839; died 26 October, 1908.
Born of humble family at Einville, Department of Meurthe and
Moselle, France, he made his studies in the diocesan school and
the seminary of the Diocese of Nancy, and was ordained priest in
1863. He was engaged successively as professor in the school
(petit seminaire) of Pont-A-Mousson, chaplain to the
Dominicanesses at Nancy (1879), and parish priest of
Saint-Martin at Pont-`a-Mousson (1890). Meanwhile, he had won
the Degree of Doctor of Letters with a Latin and a French
thesis, the latter being honoured with a prize from the French
Academy for two years. On 3 January, 1893, he was nominated to
the Bishopric of Angers, was preconized on 19 January, and
consecrated on 20 March. He succeeded Mgr Freppel, one of the
most remarkable bishops of his time, and set himself to maintain
all his predecessor's good works. To these he added the work of
facilitating the education of poor children destined for the
priesthood. He inaugurated the same pious enterprise in the
Diocese of Toulouse, to which he was transferred three years
later (30 May, 1896) by a formal order of Leo XIII. In his new
See he laboured, in accordance with the views of this pontiff,
to rally Catholics to the French Government. With this aim he
wrote the "Devoir des catholiques", an episcopal charge which
attracted wide attention and earned for him the pope's
congratulations. In addition he was summoned to Rome to be a
cardinal at the curia (19 June, 1899). Having resigned the See
of Toulouse (14 December, 1899), his activities were
thenceforward absorbed in the work of the Roman congregations
and some diplomatic negoti ations which have remained secret.
Nevertheless, he found leisure to write on the Concordat of 1801
and the conclave of 1903. In 1907 he was admitted to the French
Academy with a discourse which attracted much notice. Death came
to him unexpectedly next year in London, whither he had gone to
assist at the Eucharistic Congress. Under a somewhat common
place exterior he had rich and active nature, an inquiring and
open mind, a fine and well-cultivated intelligence which did
credit to the French clergy. His works include "De Joannis
abbatis Gorziensis vita" (Nancy 1878); "L'Ancien Regime dans la
Province de Lorraine et Barrois" (Paris, 1871; 3rd ed., 1907);
"Le Concordat de 1801" (Paris, 1903); "Les derniers jours de
Leon XIII et le conclave de 1903" (Paris, 1904); a new edition
of his works began to appear in Paris, July, 1910.
ANTOINE DEGERT
Methuselah
Methuselah
One of the Hebrew patriarchs, mentioned in Genesis 5. The word
is variously given as Mathusale (1 Chronicles 1:3; Luke 3:37)
and Mathusala. Etymologists differ with regard to the
signification of the name. Holzinger gives "man of the javelin"
as the more likely meaning; Hommel and many with him think that
it means "man of Selah", Selah being derived from a Babylonian
word, given as a title to the god, Sin; While Professor Sayee
attributes the name to a Babylonian word which is not
understood. The author of Genesis traces the patriarch's descent
through his father Henoch to Seth, a son of Adam and Eve. At the
time of his son's birth Henoch was sixty-five years of age. When
Methuselah had reached the great age of one hundred and
eighty-seven years he became the father of Lamech. Following
this he lived the remarkable term of seven hundred and
eighty-two years, which makes his age at his death nine hundred
and sixty-nine years. It follows thus that his death occurred in
the year of the Deluge. There is no record of any other human
being having lived as long as this for which reason the name,
Methuselah, has become a Synonym for longevity.
The tendency of rationalists and advanced critics of different
creeds leads them to deny outright the extraordinary details of
the ages of patriarchs. Catholic commentators, however, find no
difficulty in accepting the words of the Genesis. Certain
exegetes solve the difficulty to their own satisfaction by
declaring that the year meant by the sacred writer is not the
equivalent of our year. In the Samaritan text Methuselah was
sixty-seven at Lamech's birth, and 720 at his death.
JOSEPH V. MOLLOY
St. Matilda
St. Matilda
Queen of Germany, wife of King Henry I (The Fowler), b. at the
Villa of Engern in Westphalia, about 895; d. at Quedlinburg, 14
March, 968. She was brought up at the monastery of Erfurt.
Henry, whose marriage to a young widow, named Hathburg, had been
declared invalid, asked for Matilda's hand, and married her in
909 at Walhausen, which he presented to her as a dowry. Matilda
became the mother of: Otto I, Emperor of Germany; Henry, Duke of
Bavaria; St. Bruno, Archbishop of Cologne; Gerberga, who married
Louis IV of France; Hedwig, the mother of Hugh Capet. In 912
Matilda's husband succeeded his father as Duke of Saxony, and in
918 he was chosen to succeed King Conrad of Germany. As queen,
Matilda was humble, pious, and generous, and was always ready to
help the oppressed and unfortunate. She wielded a wholesome
influence over the king. After a reign of seventeen years, he
died in 936. He bequeathed to her all his possessions in
Quedlinburg, Poehlden, Nordhausen, Grona, and Duderstadt.
It was the king's wish that his eldest son, Otto, should succeed
him. Matilda wanted her favourite son Henry on the royal throne.
On the plea that he was the first-born son after his father
became king, she induced a few nobles to cast their vote for
him, but Otto was elected and crowned king on 8 August, 936.
Three years later Henry revolted against his brother Otto, but,
being unable to wrest the royal crown from him, submitted, and
upon the intercession of Matilda was made Duke of Bavaria. Soon,
however, the two brothers joined in persecuting their mother,
whom they accused of having impoverished the crown by her lavish
almsgiving. To satisfy them, she renounced the possessions the
deceased king had bequeathed to her, and retired to her villa at
Engern in Westphalia. But afterwards, when misfortune overtook
her sons, Matilda was called back to the palace, and both Otto
and Henry implored her pardon.
Matilda built many churches, and founded or supported numerous
monasteries. Her chief foundations were the monasteries at
Quedlinburg, Nordhausen, Engern, and Poehlden. She spent many
days at these monasteries and was especially fond of Nordhausen.
She died at the convents of Sts. Servatius and Dionysius at
Quedlinburg, and was buried there by the side of her husband.
She was venerated as a saint immediately after her death. Her
feast is celebrated on 14 March.
Two old Lives of Matilda are extant; one, Vita antiquior,
written in the monastery of Nordhausen and dedicated to the
Emperor Otto II; edited by KOEPKE in Mon. Germ. Script., X,
575-582, and reprinted in MIGNE, P.L., CLI, 1313-26. The other,
Vita Mahtildis reginae, written by order of the Emperor Henry
II, is printed in mon. Germ. Script., IV, 283-302, and in MIGNE,
P.L., CXXXV, 889-9220. CLARUS, Die heilige Mathilde, ihr Gemahl
Heinrich I, und ihre Sohne Otto I, Heinrich und Bruno (Munster,
1867); SCHWARZ, Die heilige Mathilde, Gemahlin Heinrichs I.
Konigs von Deutschland (Ratisbon, 1846); Acta SS., March, II,
351-65.
MICHAEL T. OTT
Matilda of Canossa
Matilda of Canossa
Countess of Tuscany, daughter and heiress of the Marquess
Boniface of Tuscany, and Beatrice, daughter of Frederick of
Lorraine, b. 1046; d. 24 July, 1114. In 1053 her father was
murdered. Duke Gottfried of Lorraine, an opponent of the Emperor
Henry III, went to Italy and married the widowed Beatrice. But,
in 1055, when Henry III entered Italy he took Beatrice and her
daughter Matilda prisoners and had them brought to Germany. Thus
the young countess was early dragged into the bustle of these
troublous times. That, however, did not prevent her receiving an
excellent training; she was finely educated, knew Latin, and was
very fond of serious books. She was also deeply religious, and
even in her youth followed with interest the great
ecclesiastical questions which were then prominent. Before his
death in 1056 Henry III gave back to Gottfried of Lorraine his
wife and stepdaughter. When Matilda grew to womanhood she was
married to her stepbrother Gottfried of Lower Lorraine, from
whom, however, she separated in 1071. He was murdered in 1076;
the marriage was childless, but it cannot be proved that it was
never consummated, as many historians asserted. From 1071
Matilda entered upon the government and administration of her
extensive possessions in Middle and Upper Italy. These domains
were of the greatest importance in the political and
ecclesiastical disputes of that time, as the road from Germany
by way of Upper Italy to Rome passed through them. On 22 April,
1071, Gregory VII became pope, and before long the great battle
for the independence of the Church and the reform of
ecclesiastical life began. In this contest Matilda was the
fearless, courageous, and unswerving ally of Gregory and his
successors.
Immediately on his elevation to the papacy Gregory entered into
close relations with Matilda and her mother. The letters to
Matilda (Beatrice d. 1076) give distinct expression to the
pope's high esteem and sympathy for the princess. He called her
and her mother "his sisters and daughters of St. Peter"
(Regest., II, ix), and wished to undertake a Crusade with them
to free the Christians in the Holy Land (Reg., I, xi). Matilda
and her mother were present at the Roman Lenten synods of 1074
and 1075, at which the pope published the important decrees on
the reform of ecclesiastical life. Both mother and daughter
reported to the pope favourably on the disposition of the German
king, Henry IV, and on 7 December, 1074, Gregory wrote to him,
thanking him for the friendly reception of the papal legate, and
for his intention to co- operate in the uprooting of simony and
concubinage from among the clergy. However, the quarrel between
Gregory and Henry IV soon began. In a letter to Beatrice and
Matilda (11 Sept., 1075) the pope complained of the inconstancy
and changeableness of the king, who apparently had no desire to
be at peace with him. In the next year (1076) Matilda's first
husband, Gottfried of Lorraine, was murdered at Antwerp. Gregory
wrote to Bishop Hermann of Metz, 25 August, 1076, that he did
not yet know in which state Matilda "the faithful handmaid of
St. Peter" would, under God's guidance, remain.
On account of the action of the Synod of Worms against Gregory
(1076), the latter was compelled to lay Henry IV under
excommunication. As the majority of the princes of the empire
now took sides against the king, Henry wished to be reconciled
with the pope, and consequently travelled to Italy in the middle
of a severe winter, in order to meet the pope there before the
latter should leave Italian soil on his journey to Germany.
Gregory, who had already arrived in Lombardy when he heard of
the king's journey, betook himself at Matilda's advice to her
mountain stronghold of Canossa for security. The excommunicated
king had asked the Countess Matilda, his mother- in-law
Adelaide, and Abbot Hugh of Cluny, to intercede with the pope
for him. These fulfilled the king's request, and after long
opposition Gregory permitted Henry to appear before him
personally at Canossa and atone for his guilt by public penance.
After the king's departure the pope set out for Mantua. For
safety Matilda accompanied him with armed men, but hearing a
rumour that Archbishop Wibert of Ravenna, who was unfriendly to
Gregory, was preparing an ambush for him, she brought the pope
back to Canossa. Here she drew up a first deed of gift, in which
she bequeathed her domains and estates from Ceperano to
Radicofani to the Roman Church. But as long as she lived she
continued to govern and administer them freely and
independently. When, soon after, Henry again renewed the contest
with Gregory, Matilda constantly supported the pope with
soldiers and money. On her security the monastery of Canossa had
its treasure melted down, and sent Gregory seven hundred pounds
of silver and nine pounds of gold as a contribution to the war
against Henry. The latter withdrew from the Romagna to Lombardy
in 1082, and laid waste Matilda's lands in his march through
Tuscany. Nevertheless the countess did not desist from her
adherence to Gregory. She was confirmed in this by her
confessor, Anselm, Bishop of Lucca.
In similar ways she supported the successors of the great pope
in the contest for the freedom of the Church. When in 1087,
shortly after his coronation, Pope Victor III was driven from
Rome by the antipope Wibert, Matilda advanced to Rome with an
army, occupied the Castle of Sant'Angelo and part of the city,
and called Victor back. However, at the threats of the emperor
the Romans again deserted Victor, so that he was obliged to flee
once more. At the wish of Pope Urban II Matilda married in 1089
the young Duke Welf of Bavaria, in order that the most faithful
defender of the papal chair might thus obtain a powerful ally.
In 1090 Henry IV returned to Italy to attack Matilda, whom he
had already deprived of her estates in Lorraine. He laid waste
many of her possessions, conquered Mantua, her principal
stronghold, by treachery in 1091, as well as several castles.
Although the vassals of the countess hastened to make their
peace with the emperor, Matilda again promised fidelity to the
cause of the pope, and continued the war, which now took a turn
in her favour. Henry's army was defeated before Canossa. Welf,
Duke of Bavaria, and his son of the same name, Matilda's
husband, went over to Henry in 1095, but the countess remained
steadfast. When the new German king, Henry V, entered Italy in
the autumn of 1110, Matilda did homage to him for the imperial
fiefs. On his return he stopped three days with Matilda in
Tuscany, showed her every mark of respect, and made her imperial
vice-regent of Liguria. In 1112, she reconfirmed the donation of
her property to the Roman Church that she had made in 1077 (Mon.
Germ. Hist.: Legum, IV, i, 653 sqq.). After her death Henry went
to Italy in 1116, and took her lands -- not merely the imperial
fiefs, but also the freeholds. The Roman Church, though, put
forward its legitimate claim to the inheritance. A lengthy
dispute now issued over the possession of the dominions of
Matilda, which was settled by a compromise between Innocent II
and Lothair III in 1133. The emperor and Duke Henry of Saxony
took Matilda's freeholds as fiefs from the pope at a yearly rent
of 100 pounds of silver. The duke took the feudal oath to the
pope; after his death Matilda's possessions were to be restored
wholly to the Roman Church. Afterwards there were again disputes
about these lands, and in agreements between the popes and
emperors of the twelfth century this matter is often mentioned.
In 1213 the Emperor Frederick II recognized the right of the
Roman Church to the possessions of Matilda.
Donizo, Vita Mathildis, ed. Bethmann in Mon. Germ. Hist.:
Script., XII, 348-409; Vita alia in Muratori, Scriptores rer.
Italicorum, V, 389-397; Libelli de lite in Mon. Germ. Hist.,
I-III; Huddy, Matilda, Countess of Tuscany (London, 1905);
Fiorentini, Memorie di Matilda, la gran contessa di Toscana
(Lucca, 1642; new ed., 1756); Tosti, La contessa Matilde e i
Romani Pontefici (Florence, 1859; new ed., Rome, 1886); RenEe,
La grande Italienne, Mathilde de Toscane (Paris, 1859);
Overmann, Die Besitzungen der Grossgraefin Mathilde von Tuscien
(Berlin, 1892); Hefele, Konziliengeschichte, v (2nd ed.,
Freiburg im Br., 1886); Meyer von Knonau, Jahrbuecher des
deutschen Reiches unter Heinrich IV. und Heinrich V. (6 vols.,
Leipzig, 1890-1907); Potthast, Bibl. hist. med. aevi, 2nd., II,
1486.
J.P. Kirsch
Matins
Matins
I. NAME
The word "Matins" (Lat. Matutinum or Matutinae), comes from
Matuta, the Latin name for the Greek goddess Leucothae or
Leucothea, white goddess, or goddess of the morning (Aurora):
Leucothee graius, Matuta vocabere nostris, Ovid, V, 545. Hence
Matutine, Matutinus, Matutinum tempus, or simply Matutinum (i.e.
tempus); some of the old authors prefer Matutini Matutinorum, or
Matutinae. In any case the primitive signification of the word
under these different forms was Aurora, sunrise. It was at first
applied to the office Lauds, which, as a matter of fact, was
said at dawn (see LAUDS), its liturgical synonym being the word
Gallicinium (cock-crow), which also designated this office. The
night-office retained its name of Vigils, since, as a rule,
Vigils and Matins (Lauds) were combined, the latter serving, to
a certain extent, as the closing part of Vigils. The name Matins
was then extended to the office of Vigils, Matins taking the
name of Lauds, a term which, strictly speaking, only designates
the last three psalms of that office, i.e. the "Laudate" psalms.
At the time when this change of name took place, the custom of
saying Vigils at night was observed scarcely anywhere but in
monasteries, whilst elsewhere they were said in the morning, so
that finally it did not seem a misapplication to give to a night
Office a name which, strictly speaking, applied only to the
office of day-break. The change, however, was only gradual. St.
Benedict (sixth century) in his description of the Divine
Office, always refers to Vigils as the Night Office, whilst that
of day-break he calls Matins, Lauds being the last three psalms
of that office (Regula, cap. XIII-XIV; see LAUDS). The Council
of Tours in 567 had already applied the title "Matins" to the
Night Office: ad Matutinum sex antiphonae; Laudes Matutinae;
Matutini hymni are also found in various ancient authors as
synonymous with Lauds. (Hefele-Leclercq, "Hist. des Conciles",
V, III, 188, 189.)
II.ORIGIN (MATINS AND VIGILS)
The word Vigils, at first applied to the Night Office, also
comes from a Latin source, both as to the term and its use,
namely the Vigiliae or nocturnal watches or guards of the
soldiers. The night from six o'clock in the evening to six
o'clock in the morning was divided into four watches or vigils
of three hours each, the first, the second, the third, and the
fourth vigil. From the liturgical point of view and in its
origin, the use of the term was very vague and elastic.
Generally it designated the nightly meetings, synaxes, of the
Christians. Under this form, the watch (Vigil) might be said to
date back as early as the beginning of Christianity. It was
either on account of the secrecy of their meetings, or because
of some mystical idea which made the middle of the night the
hour par excellence for prayer, in the words of the psalm: media
nocte surgebam ad confitendum tibi, that the Christians chose
the night time for their synaxes, and of all other nights,
preferably the Sabbath. There is an allusion to it in the Acts
of the Apostles (xx, 4), as also in the letter of Pliny the
Younger. The liturgical services of these synaxes was composed
of almost the same elements as that of the Jewish Synagogue:
readings from the Books of the Law, singing of psalms, divers
prayers. What gave them a Christian character was the fact that
they were followed by the Eucharistic service, and that to the
reading from the Law, the apostles and the Acts of the Apostles
was very soon added, as well as the Gospels and sometimes other
books which were non-canonical, as, for example, the Epistles of
Saint Clement, that of Saint Barnabas, the Apocalypse of Saint
Peter, etc.
The more solemn watches, which were held on the anniversaries of
martyrs or on certain feasts, were also known by this title,
especially during the third and fourth centuries. The Vigil in
this case was also called pannychis, because the greater part of
the night was devoted to it. Commenced in the evening, they only
terminated the following morning, and comprised, in addition to
the Eucharistic Supper, homilies, chants, and divers offices.
These last Vigils it was that gave rise to certain abuses, and
they were finally abolished in the Church (see VIGILS).
Notwithstanding this, however, the Vigils, in their strictest
sense of Divine Office of the Night, were maintained and
developed. Among writers from the fourth to the sixth century we
find several descriptions of them. The "De Virginitate", a
fourth-century treatise, gives them as immediately following
Lauds. The author, however, does not determine the number of
psalms which had to be recited. Methodius in his "Banquet of
Virgins" (Symposion sive Convivium decem Virginum) subdivided
the Night Office or pannychis into watches, but it is difficult
to determine what he meant by these nocturnes. St. Basil also
gives a very vague description of the Night Office or Vigils,
but in terms which permit us to conclude that the psalms were
sung, sometimes by two choirs, and sometimes as responses.
Cassian gives us a more detailed account of the Night Office of
the fifth century monks. The number of psalms, which at first
varied, was subsequently fixed at twelve, with the addition of a
lesson from the Old and another from the New Testament. St.
Jerome defended the Vigils against the attacks of Vigilantius,
but it is principally concerning the watches at the Tombs of the
Martyrs that he speaks in his treatise, "Contra Vigilantium". Of
all the descriptions the most complete is that in the
"Peregrinatio AEtheriae", the author of which assisted at Matins
in the Churches of Jerusalem, where great solemnity was
displayed. (For all these texts, see Baeumer-Biron, loc. cit.,
p. 79, 122, 139, 186, 208, 246, etc.) Other allusions are to be
found in Caesaurius of Arles, Nicetiuis or Nicetae of Treves,
and Gregory of Tours (see Baumer-Biron, loc. cit., I, 216, 227,
232).
III.THE ELEMENTS OF MATINS FROM THE FOURTH TO THE SIXTH CENTURY
In all the authors we have quoted, the form of Night Prayers
would appear to have varied a great deal. Nevertheless in these
descriptions, and in spite of certain differences, we find the
same elements repeated: the psalms generally chanted in the form
of responses, that is to say by one or more cantors, the choir
repeating one verse, which served as a response, alternately
with the verses of psalms which were sung by the cantors;
readings taken from the Old and the New Testament, and later on,
from the works of the Fathers and doctors; litanies or
supplications; prayer for the divers members of the Church,
clergy, faithful, neophytes, and catechumens; for emperors;
travellers; the sick; and generally for all the necessities of
the Church, and even prayer for Jews and for heretics. [Baumer,
Litanie u. Missal, in "Studien des Benediktinerordens", II
(Raigern, 1886), 287, 289.] It is quite easy to find these
essential elements in our modern Matins.
IV. MATINS IN THE ROMAN AND OTHER LITURGIES
In the modern Roman Liturgy, Matins, on account of its length,
the position it occupies, and the matter of which it is
composed, may be considered as the most important office of the
day, and for the variety and richness of its elements the most
remarkable. It commences more solemnly than the other offices,
with a psalm (Ps. xciv) called the Invitatory, which is chanted
or recited in the form of a response, in accordance with the
most ancient custom. The hymns, which have been but tardily
admitted into the Roman Liturgy, as well as the hymns of the
other hours, form part of a very ancient collection which, so
far at least as some of them are concerned, may be said to
pertain to the seventh or even to the sixth century. As a rule
they suggest the symbolic signification of this Hour (see No.
V), the prayer of the middle of the night. This principal form
of the Office should be distinguished from the Office of Sunday,
of Feasts, and the ferial or week day Office. The Sunday Office
is made up of the invitatory, hymn, three nocturns, the first of
which comprises twelve psalms, and the second and third three
psalms each; nine lessons, three to each nocturn, each lesson
except the ninth being followed by a response; and finally, the
canticle Te Deum, which is recited or sung after the ninth
lesson instead of a response. The Office of Feasts is similar to
that of Sunday, except that there are only three psalms to the
first nocturn instead of twelve. The week-day or ferial office
and that of simple feasts are composed of one nocturn only, with
twelve psalms and three lessons. The Office of the Dead and that
of the three last days of Holy Week are simpler, the
absolutions, benedictions, and invitatory being omitted, at
least for the three last days of Holy Week, since the invitatory
is said in the Offices of the Dead.
The principal characteristics of this office which distinguish
it from all the other offices are as follows:
+ The Psalms used at Matins are made up of a series commencing
with Psalm i and running without intermission to Psalm cviii
inclusive. The order of the Psalter is followed almost without
interruption, except in the case of feasts, when the Psalms
are chosen according to their signification, but always from
the series i-cviii, the remaining Psalms being reserved for
Vespers and the other Offices.
+ The Lessons form a unique element, and in the other Offices
give place to a Capitulum or short lesson. This latter has
possibly been introduced only for the sake of symmetry, and in
its present form, at any rate, gives but a very incomplete
idea of what the true reading or lesson is. The Lessons of
Matins on the contrary are readings in the proper sense of the
term: they comprise the most important parts of the Old and
the New Testament, extracts from the works of the principal
doctors of the Church, and legends of the martyrs or of the
other saints. The lessons from Holy Scripture are distributed
in accordance with certain fixed rules (rubrics) which assign
such or such books of the Bible to certain seasons of the
year. In this manner extracts from all the Books of the Bible
are read at the Office during the year. The idea, however, of
having the whole Bible read in the Office, as proposed by
several reformers of the Breviary, more especially during the
seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, has never been regarded
favourably by the Church, which views the Divine Office as a
prayer and not as an object of study for the clergy.
+ The Invitatory and, on certain days, the Finale or Te Deum
also form one of the principal characteristics of this Office.
+ The Responses, more numerous in this Office, recall the most
ancient form of psalmody; that of the psalm chanted by one
alone and answered by the whole choir, as opposed to the
antiphonic form, which consists in two choirs alternately
reciting the psalms.
+ The division into three or two Nocturns is also a special
feature of Matins, but it is impossible to say why it has been
thought by some to be a souvenir of the military watches
(there were not three, but four, watches) or even of the
ancient Vigils, since ordinarily there was but one meeting in
the middle of the night. The custom of rising three times for
prayer could only have been in vogue, as exceptional, in
certain monasteries, or for some of the more solemn feasts
(see Nocturns).
+ In the Office of the Church of Jerusalem, of which the pilgrim
AEtheria gives us a description, the Vigils on Sundays
terminate with the solemn reading of the Gospel, in the Grotto
of the Holy Sepulchre. This practice of reading the Gospel has
been preserved in the Benedictine Liturgy. It is a matter for
regret that in the Roman Liturgy this custom, so ancient and
so solemn, is no longer represented but by the Homily.
The Ambrosian Liturgy, better perhaps than any other, has
preserved traces of the great Vigils or pannychides, with their
complex and varied display of processions, psalmodies, etc. (cf.
Dom Cagin; "Paleographie Musicale", vol. VI, p. 8, sq.; Paul
Lejay; Ambrosien (rit.) in "Dictionnaire d'Archeol. Chret. et de
Liturgie", vol. I, p. 1423 sq.). The same Liturgy has also
preserved Vigils of long psalmody. This Nocturnal Office adapted
itself at a later period to a more modern form, approaching more
and more closely to the Roman Liturgy. Here too are found the
three Nocturns, with Antiphon, Psalms, Lessons, and Responses,
the ordinary elements of the Roman Matins, and with a few
special features quite Ambrosian. In the Benedictine Office,
Matins, like the text of the Office, follows the Roman Liturgy
quite closely. The number of psalms, viz. twelve, is always the
same, there being three or two Nocturns according to the degree
of solemnity of the particular Office celebrated. Ordinarily
there are four Lessons, followed by their responses, to each
Nocturn. The two most characteristic features of the Benedictine
Matins are: the Canticles of the third Nocturn, which are not
found in the Roman Liturgy, and the Gospel, which is sung
solemnly at the end, the latter trait, as already pointed out,
being very ancient. In the Mozarabic Liturgy (q.v.), on the
contrary, Matins are made up of a system of Antiphons, Collects,
and Versicles which make them quite a departure from the Roman
system.
V. SIGNIFICATION AND SYMBOLISM
From the foregoing it is clear that Matins remains the principal
Office of the Church, and the one which, in its origin, dates
back the farthest, as far as the Apostolic ages, as far even as
the very inception of the Church. It is doubtless, after having
passed through a great many transformations, the ancient Night
Office, the Office of the Vigil. In a certain sense it is,
perhaps, the Office which was primitively the preparation for
the Mass, that is to say, the Mass of the Catechumens, which
presents at any rate the same construction as that Office:--the
reading from the Old Testament, then the epistles and the Acts,
and finally the Gospel--the whole being intermingled with
psalmody, and terminated by the Homily (cf. Cabrol: "Les
Origines Liturgiques", Paris, 1906, 334 seq.). If for a time
this Office appeared to be secondary to that of Lauds or Morning
Office, it is because the latter, originally but a part of
Matins, drew to itself the solemnity, probably on account of the
hour at which it was celebrated, permitting all the faithful to
be present. According to another theory suggested by the
testimony of Lactantius, St. Jerome, and St. Isidore, the
Christians, being ignorant of the date of Christ's coming,
thought He would return during the middle of the night, and most
probably the night of Holy Saturday or Easter Sunday, at or
about the hour when He arose from the sepulchre. Hence the
importance of the Easter Vigil, which would thus have become the
model or prototype of the other Saturday Vigils, and
incidentally of all the nightly Vigils. The idea of the Second
Advent would have given rise to the Easter Vigil, and the latter
to the office of the Saturday Vigil (Batiffol, "Hist. du
Breviaire", 3). The institution of the Saturday Vigil would
consequently be as ancient as that of Sunday.
BONA, De Divina Psalmodia in Opera Omnia (Antwerp, 1677), 693
sq.; GRANCOLAS, Commentarius historicus in Rom. Breviar., 100;
PROBST, Brevier und Breviergebet (Tubingen, 1854), 143 sq.;
BAUMER, Histoire du Breviaire, tr. BIRON, I (Paris, 1905), 60
sq.; DUCHESNE, Christian Worship (1904), 448, 449; BATIFFOL,
Histoire du Breviaire, 3 sq.; THALHOFER, Handbuch der
Katholischen Liturgik, II, 434, 450; GASTOUE, Les Vigiles
Nocturnes (Paris, 1908) (Collection Bloud); see HOURS
(CANONICAL); LAUDS; VIGILS; BREVIARY.
F. CABROL
Matricula
Matricula
A term having several meanings in the field of Christian
antiquity.
(1) The word is applied first to the catalogue or roll of the
clergy of a particular church; thus Clerici immatriculati
denoted the elergy entitled to maintenance from the resources of
the church to which they were attached. Allusions to matricula
in this sense are found in the second and third canons of the
Council of Agde and in canon 13 of the Council of Orleans (both
of the sixth century).
(2) This term was also applied to the ecclesiastical list of
poor pensioners who were assisted from the church revenues;
hence the names matricularii, matriculariae, by which persons
thus assisted, together with those who performed menial services
about the church, were known.
(3) The house in which such pensioners were lodged was also
known as matricula, which thus becomes synonymous with
xenodochium.
MAURICE M. HASSET
Matteo Da Sienna
Matteo da Sienna
(Matteo di Giovanni di Bartolo).
Painter, born at Borgo San Sepolcro, c. 1435; died 1495. His
common appellation was derived from his having worked chiefly in
the city of Siena. In the fourteenth century the masters of the
Sienese school rivalled the Florentine painters; in the
fifteenth, the former school, resisting the progress achieved at
Florence, allowed itself to be outstripped by its rival.
Although in this period it gives the impression of a
superannuated art, Sienese painting still charms with its
surviving line traditional qualities -- its sincerity of
feeling, the refined grace of its figures, its attention to
minutiae of dress and of architectural background, and its
fascinating frankness of execution. Of these qualities Matteo
has his share, but he is furthermore dlstinguished by the
dignity of his female figures, the gracious presence of his
angels, and the harmony of a colour scheme at once rich and
brilliant. For this reason critics pronounce him the best of the
fifteenth century Sienese painters. The earliest authentic work
of Matteo is dated 1470, a Virgin enthroned, with angels,
painted for the Servites, and now in the Academy of Siena. In
1487 he executed for the high altar of Santa Maria de' Servi del
Borgo -- the Servite church of his native village -- an
"Assumption" with the Apostles and other saints looking on; on
the predella he has painted the history of the Blessed Virgin.
According to G. Milanesi (in his edition of Vasari, II,
Florence, 1878, p. 493, note 3), the main portion of this
painting is still to be seen in the church, while the lateral
portions have been removed to the sacristy. Some other Madonnas
of his, deserve particular rnention: one in the Palazzo Tolomei
at Siena, the Virgin and Infant Jesus painted, in 1484 for the
city palace of Sienna, on a pilaster in the hall decorated by
Spinello Aretino; in the duomo of Pienza, a Virgin and Child
enthroned between St. Mathew and St. Catherine, St. Bartholomew
and St. Luke. On the lunette Matteo painted the Flagellation,
and on the predella three medallions -- "Ecce Homo", the Virgin,
and an Evangelist. The signature reads : "Opus Mathei Johannis
de Senis". As decoration for the pavement of the cathedral of
Sienna, he designed three subjects : "The Sibyl of Samos", "The
Deliverance of Bethulia", and "The Massacre of the Innocents".
In 1477 he painted his "Madonna della Neve" (Our Lady of Snow),
for the church under that invocation at Sienna. On comparing
this with the Servite Madonna of 1470, it is seen to surpass the
earlier work in beauty of types, symmetry of proportions, and
colour-tone. The St. Barbara, a composition made for the church
of San Domenico at Siena, is also remarkable work: tvvo angels
are gracefully laying a crown on the saint's head, while others,
accompanied by St. Mary Magdalen and St. Catherine of Alexandria
and playing instruments, surround her. When Matteo treats
subjects involving lively action, he loses a great deal of his
power. The incidental scenes are combined in a confused way, the
expression of feeling is forced, and degenerates into grimace,
and the general result is affected and caricature-like.
GASTON SORTAIS
Matteo of Aquasparta
Matteo of Aquasparta
A celebrated Italian Franciscan, born at Aquasparta in the
Diocese of Todi, Umbria, about 1235; died at Rome, 29 October,
1302. He was a member of the Bentivenghi family, to which
Cardinal Bentivenga (d. 1290), also a Franciscan, belonged.
Matteo entered the Franciscan Order at Todi, took the degree of
Master of Theology at Paris, and taught also for a time at
Bologna. The Franciscan, John Peckham, having become Archbishop
of Canterbury in 1279, Matteo was in 1280 made Peckham's
successor as Lecter sacri Patatii apostolici, i.e. he was
appointed reader (teacher) of theology to the papal Curia. In
1287 the chapter held at Montpellier elected him general in
succession to Arlotto of Prato. When Girolamo Masci (of Ascoli),
who had previously been general of the Franciscan Order, became
pope as Nicholas IV, 15 Feb., 1288, he created Matteo cardinal
of the title of San Lorenzo in Damaso in May of that year. After
this Matteo was made Cardinal Bishop of Porto, and p
nitentiarius maior (Grand Penitentiary). He still, however,
retained the direction of the order until the chapter of 1289.
Matteo had summoned this chapter to meet at Assisi, but Nicholas
IV caused it to be held in his presence at Rieti; here Raymond
Gaufredi, a native of Provence, was elected general. As general
of the order Matteo maintained a moderate, middle course; among
other things he reorganized the studies pursued in the order. In
the quarrel between Boniface VIII and the Colonna, from 1297
onwards, he strongly supported the pope, both in official
memorials and in public sermons. Boniface VIII appointed him,
both in 1297 and 1300, to an important embassy to Lombardy, the
Romagna, and to Florence, where the Blacks (Neri) and the Whites
(Bianchi), that is, the Guelphs and Ghibellines, were violently
at issue with each other. In 1301 Matteo returned to Florence,
following Charles of Valois, but neither peace nor
reconciliation was brought about. The Blacks finally obtained
the upper hand, and the chiefs of the Ghibelline party were
obliged to go into exile; among these was the poet Dante. In a
famous passage of the "Divina Commedia" (Paradiso, XII, 124-26),
Dante certainly speaks as an extreme Ghibelline against Matteo
of Aquasparta. Matteo, however, had died before this. He was
buried in the Franciscan church of Ara C li, where his monument
is still to be seen.
Matteo was a very learned philosopher and theologian; he was
further a personal pupil of St. Bonaventure, whose teaching, in
general, he followed, or rather developed. In this respect he
was one of what is known as the older Franciscan school, who
preferred Augustinianism to the more pronounced Aristoteleanism
of St. Thomas Aquinas. His principal work is the acute
"Quaestiones disputatae", which treats of various subjects. Of
this one book appeared at Quaracchi in 1903 (the editing and
issue are discontinued for the present), namely: "Quaestiones
disputatae selectae", in "Bibliotheca Franciscana scholastica
medii aevi", I; the "Quaestiones" are preceded by a "Tractatus
de excellentia S. Scripturae" (pp. 1-22), also by a "Sermo de
studio S. Scripturae" (pp. 22-36); it is followed by "De
processione Spiritus Sancti" (pp. 429-53). Five "Quaestiones de
Cognitione" had already been edited in the collection called "De
humanae cognitionis ratione anecdota quaedam" (Quaracchi, 1883),
87-182. The rest of his works, still unedited are to be found at
Assisi and Todi. Among them are: "Commentarius in 4 libros
Sententiarum" (autograph); "Concordantiae super 4 ll.
Sententiarum"; "Postilla super librum Job"; "Postilla super
Psalterium" (autograph); "In 12 Prophetas Minores"; "In
Danielem"; "In Ev. Matthaei"; "In Apocalypsim" (autograph); "In
Epist. ad Romanos"; "Sermones dominicales et feriales"
(autograph).
Cf. the editions referred to of the Qu st. disput. (1903), pp.
v-xvi, and De Hum. Cognit., pp. xiv-xv; Chronica XXIV Min'str.
General O. Min. in Analecta Franciscana, III (Quaracchi, 1897),
406-19, 699, 703; WADDING, Scriptores Ord. Min. (Rome, 1650),
252, (1806), 172, (1906), 269-70; SBARALEA, Suppl. ad Script. O.
M. (Rome, 1806), 525; DENIFLE-CHATELAIN, Chartular. Univ.
Paris., II (Paris, 1891), 59; EHRLE in Zeitschrift fuer kathol.
Theologie, VII (Innsbruck, 1883), 46; GRABMANN, Die
philosophische und theologische Erkenntnislehre des Kardinals
Matth us von Aquasparta (Vienna, 1906); Theologische Studien der
Leo Gesellschaft, Pt. XIV.
MICHAEL BIHL
Matter
Matter
(Gr. hyle; Lat. materia; Fr. matiere; Ger. materie and stoff),
the correlative of Form. See HYLOMORPHISM; FORM.
Taking the term in its widest sense, matter signifies that out
of which anything is made or composed. Thus the original meaning
of hyle (Homer) is "wood", in the sense of "grove" or "forest";
and hence, derivatively, "wood cut down" or timber. The Latin
materia, as opposed to lignum (wood used for fuel), has also the
meaning of timber for building purposes. In modern languages
this word (as signifying raw material) is used in a similar way.
Matter is thus one of the elements of the becoming and continued
being of an artificial product. The architect employs timber in
the building of his house; the shoemaker fashions his shoes from
leather. It will be observed that, as an intrinsic element,
matter connotes composition, and is most easily studied in a
consideration of the nature of change. This is treated ex
professo in the article on CAUSE (q. v.). It will, however, be
necessary to touch upon it briefly again here, since matter can
only be rationally treated in so far as it is a correlate. The
present article will therefore be divided into paragraphs giving
the scholastic doctrine under the following heads:
(1) Secondary Matter (in accidental change);
(2) Primordial Matter (in substantial change);
(3) The Nature of Primordial Matter;
(4) Privation;
(5) Permanent Matter;
(6) The Unity of Matter;
(7) Matter as the Principle of Individuation;
(8) The Causality of Matter;
(9) Variant Theories.
(1) Secondary Matter
Accepting matter in the original sense given above, Aristotle
defines the "material cause" hoion ho chalkos tou andriantos kai
ho argyros tes phiales. That the form of the statue is realized
in the bronze, that the bronze is the subject of the form, is
sensibly evident. These two elements of the statue or bowl are
the intrinsic "causes" of its being what it is. With the
addition of the efficient and final cause (and of privation)
they constitute the whole doctrine of its aetiology, and are
invoked as a sufficient explanation of "accidental" change.
There is no difficulty in understanding such a doctrine. The
determinable "matter" (here, in scholastic terminology, more
properly substance) is the concrete reality -- brass or white
metal -- susceptible of determination to a particular mode of
being. The determinant is the artificial shape or form actually
visible. The "matter" remains substantially the same before,
throughout, and after its fashioning.
(2) Primordial Matter
The explanation is not so obvious when it is extended to cover
substantial change. It is indeed true that already in speaking
ot the "matter" of accidental change (substance), we go beyond
the experience given in sense perception. But, when we attempt
to deal with the elements of corporeal substance, we proceed
still farther in the process of abstraction. It is impossible to
represent to ourselves either primordial matter or substantial
form. Any attempt to do so inevitably results in a play of
imagination that tends to falsify their nature, for they are not
imaginable. The proper objects of our understanding are the
essences of those bodies with which we are surrounded (cf. S.
Thomas, "De Principio Individuationis"). We have, however, no
intuitive knowledge of these, nor of their principles. We may
reason about them, indeed, and must so reason if we wish to
explain the possibility of change; but to imagine is to court
the danger of arriving at entirely false conclusions. Hence
whatever may be asserted with regard to primordial matter must
necessarily be the result of pure and abstract reasoning upon
the concrete data furnished by sense. It is an inexisting
principle invoked to account for substantial alteration. But, as
St. Thomas Aquinas remarks, whatever knowledge of it we may
acquire is reached only by its analogy to "form" (ibid.). The
two are the inseparable constituents of corporeal beings. The
teaching of Aquinas may be briefly set out here as embodying
that also of Aristotle, with which it is in the main identical.
It is the teaching commonly received in the School; though
various other opinions, to which allusion will be made later,
are to be found advanced both before and after its formulation
by Aquinas.
(3) The Nature of Primordial Matter
For St. Thomas primordial matter is the common ground of
substantial change, the element of indetermination in corporeal
beings. It is a pure potentiality, or determinability, void of
substantiality, of quality, of quantity, and of all the other
accidents that determine sensible being. It is not created,
neither is it creatable, but rather concreatable and concreated
with Form, (q. v.), to which it is opposed as a correlate, as
one of the essential "intrinsic constituents" (De Principiis
Naturae) of those corporeal beings in whose existence the act of
creation terminates. Similarly it is not generated, neither does
it corrupt in substantial change, since all generation and
corruption is a transition in which one substance becomes
another, and consequently can only take place in changes of
composite subjects. It is produced out of nothing and can only
cease to be by falling back into nothingness (De Natura
Materiae, i). Its potentiality is not a property superadded to
its essence, for it is a potentiality towards substantial being
(In I Phys., Lect. 14). A stronger statement is to be found in
"QQ. Disp.", III, Q. iv., a. 2 ad 4: "The relation of primordial
matter . . . to passive potentiality is as that of God . . . to
active (potentiam activam). Therefore matter is its passivity as
God is His activity". It is clear throughout that St. Thomas has
here in view primordial matter in the uttermost degree of
abstraction. Indeed, he is explicit upon the point. "That is
commonly called primordial matter which is in the category of
substance as a potentiality cognized apart from all species and
form, and even from privation; yet susceptive of forms and
privations" (De spiritual. creat., Q. i, a. 1).
If we were "obliged to define its essence, it would have for
specific difference its relation to form, and for genus its
substantiality" (Quod., IX, a. 6. 3). And again: "It has its
being by reason of that which comes to it, since in itself it
has incomplete, or rather no being at all" (De Princip.
Naturae). Such information is mainly negative in character, and
the phrases employed by St. Thomas show that there is a certain
difficulty in expressing exactly the nature of the principle
under consideration. This difficulty evidently arises from the
imagination, and with imagination the philosophy of matter has
nothing to do. We must begin with the real, the concrete being.
To explain this, and the changes it is capable of undergoing, we
must infer the coexistence of matter and form determinable and
determinant. We may then strip matter, by abstraction, of this
or that determination; we may consider it apart from all its
determinations. But once attempt to consider it apart from that
analogy by which alone we can know it, once strip it mentally of
its determinability by form, and nothing -- absolute nothing --
remains. For matter is neither realizable nor thinkable without
its correlative. The proper object of intelligence, and likewise
the subject of being, is Ens, Verum. Hence St. Thomas teaches
further that primordial matter is "a substantial reality" (i.
e., a reality reductively belonging to the category of
substance), "potential towards all forms, and, under the action
of a fit and proportioned efficient cause, determinable to any
species of corporeal substance" (In VII Met., sect. 2); and,
again: "It is never stripped of form and privation; now it is
under one form now under another. Of itself it can never exist"
(Do Princip. Natur.) . What has been said may appear to deny to
matter the reality that is predicated of it. This is not the
case. As the determinable element in corporeal substance it must
have a reality that is not that of the determining form. The
mind by abstraction may consider it as potential to any form,
but can never overstep the limit of its potentiality as
inexistent (cf. Aristotle's ti enyparchontos (Phys., iii, 194b,
16) and realized in bodies without finding itself contemplating
absolute nothingness. Of itself matter can never exist, and
consequently of itself it can never be thought.
(4) Privation
The use of the term "privation" by Aquinas brings us to an
exceedingly interesting consideration. While primordial matter,
as "understood" without any form or privation, is an indifferent
potentiality towards information by any corporeal form, the same
matter, considered as realized by a given form, and actually
existing, does not connote this indefinite capacity of
information. There is, in fact, a certain rhythmic evolution of
forms observable in nature. By electrolysis only oxygen and
hydrogen can be obtained from water; from oxygen and hydrogen in
definite proportions only water is generated. This fact St.
Thomas expresses in the physical terms of his time: "If any
particular matter, e. g. fire or air, were despoiled of its
form, it is manifest that the potentiality towards other
educible forms remaining in it would not be so ample, as is the
case in regard to matter (considered) universally" (De Nat.
Mat., v). The consideration gives us the signification of
"privation", as used in the theory of substantial change. Matter
is "deprived" of the form or forms towards which alone it is
potential when actually existing in some one or other state of
determination. Hence the distinction that is found in the
Opuscule "Do Principiis Naturae".
(5) Permanent Matter
" Matter that does not connote a privation is permanent, whereas
that which does is transient". The connotation of a privation
limits primordial matter to that which is realized by a form
disposing it towards realization by certain other definite
forms. "Privation" is the absence of those forms. Permanent
matter is matter considered in the highest degree of
abstraction, and connoting thereby no more than its correlation
to form in general.
(6) The Unity of Matter
Further, this (permanent) matter is said to be one; not however,
in the sense of a numerical unity. Every corporeal being is held
to result from the union of matter and form. There are in
consequence as many distinct individual realized portions of
matter as there are distinct bodies (atoms, for example) in the
universe. Nevertheless, when the severally determining
principles and privations are abstracted from, when matter is
cognized in its greatest abstraction, it is cognized as
possessing a logical unity. It is understood without any of
those dispositions that make it differ numerically with the
multiplication of bodies (De Principiis Naturae).
(7) Matter as the Principle of lndividuation
More important is the doctrine that grounds in matter the
numerical distinction of specifically identical corporeal
beings. In the general doctrine of St. Thomas, the individual --
"this thing" (hoc aliquid) -- is a primordial substance,
individualized by the fact that it is what it is ("Substantia
individuatur per seipsam": Summa, Pars I, Q. xxix, a. 1). It is
intrinsically complete, capable of subsisting in itself as the
subject of accidents in the ontological order, and of predicates
in the logical. It is undivided in itself, distinct from all
other, incommunicable (cf. De Principio Individuationis). These
characteristic notes are realized in the case of two substances
that differ by essence. Thus, for St. Thomas, no two angels (q.
v.) are specifically identical (Summa, Pars I, Q. 1, a. 4). More
than this, even a corporeal form, however material and low in
the hierarchy of forms, would not be other than unique in its
species, if it could exist (or be thought), apart from its
relation to matter (cf. De Spiritual. Creaturis, Q. i, a. 8).
Whiteness, if it could subsist without any subject, would be
unique. If a plurality of such accidental forms could subsist
they also would differ specifically -- as whiteness, redness,
etc. But this distinction evidently does not obtain in the case
of a number of individuals belonging to one species. They are
essentially identical. How is it, then, that they can constitute
a plurality? The answer given by St. Thomas to this question is
his doctrine of the Principle of Individuation. Whereas the
plurality of simple substances, or "forms", is due to a real
difference of their essences (as a triangle differs from a
circle), the plurality of identical essences, or "forms",
supposes an intrinsic principle of individuation for each (as
two triangles realized in two pieces of wood) . Thus, simple
substances differ by reason of their nature, formally; while
composite ones differ by reason of an inherent principle,
materially. They are multiplied within a given species by reason
of matter.
At this point a peculiarly delicate question arises. The
abstract essence of man connotes matter. If, then, primordial
matter be the principle of individuation, it would seem that the
abstract essence is already individualized. Wherein would lie
the admitted difference between the species and the individual?
On the other hand, if that be not the case, it would appear
equally evident that, in adding to the individual a principle
not contained in the abstract essence, it would no longer be an
object of classification in the species. It would not be merely
the concrete realization of the essence, but something more. In
either case the doctrine would seem to be incompatible with
modern Realism. St. Thomas avoids the difficulty by teaching
that matter is the principle of individuation, but only as
correlated to quantity. The expressions that he uses are
"materia signata", "materia subjecta dimensioni" (In Boeth. de
Trin., Q. iv, a. 2), "materia sub certis dimensionibus" (De Nat.
Mat., iii) . This needs some explanation. Quantity, as such, is
an accident; and it is evident that no accident can account for
the individuality of its own subject. But quantity results in
corporeal substance by reason of matter. Primordial matter,
then, considered as such, has a relation to quantity consequent
upon its necessary relation to form (De Nat. Mat., iv). When
actuated by form it has dimensions -- the "inseparable
concomitants that determine it in time and place" (De Princip.
Individ.). The abstract essence, then, embracing matter as it
does form, will connote an aptitude or potentiality towards a
quantitative determination, necessarily resultant in each
concrete subject realized.
Here, as formerly, the fact must not be lost sight of that the
reasoning begins with the concrete bodies actually existing in
nature. It is by an abstraction that we consider matter without
the actual quantity that it always exhibits when realized in
corporeal substance. Peter, as a matter of fact, differs from
Paul, yet they are specifically identical as rational animals.
Peter is "this" man, and Paul is "that", but "this" and "that",
because "here" and "there". "Form is not individuated in that it
is received in matter, but only in that it is received in this
or that distinct matter, and determined to here and now" (In
Boeth. de Trin. Q. iv, a. 1). It is evident that "here" and
"now" are the immediate and inseparable signs for us of the
individual. They indicate " hoec caro et ossa". And they are
only possible by reason of (informed) matter, the ground of
divisibility and location in space. Still, it must be noted that
"materia signata quantitate" is not to be understood as
primordial matter having an aptitude towards fixed and
invariable dimensions. The determined dimensions that are found
in the existing subject are to be attributed, St. Thomas
teaches, to matter as "individuated by indeterminate dimensions
preunderstood in it" (" In Boeth. de Trin.", Q. iv, a. 2; "De
Nat. Mat.", vii). This remark explains how an individual (as
Peter) can vary in dimension without varying in identity; and at
the same time gives the reply of Aquinas to the difficulty
raised above. Primordial matter, as connoted in the essence, has
am aptitude towards indeterminate dimensions. These dimensions
when realized are the ground of the determined dimensions
(ibid.) that make the individual hic et nunc an object of
sense-perception (De Nat. Materiae, iii).
(8) The Causality of Matter
Since Primordial Matter is numbered among the causes of
corporeal being, the mature of its causality remains to be
considered. (See CAUSE.) All scholastics admit its concurrence
with form, as an intrinsic cause; but they are not unanimous as
to the precise part it plays. For Suarez it is unitive; for John
of St. Thomas receptive. The Conimbricences place its causality
in both notes. It would, perhaps, seem more consonant with the
doctrine of St. Thomas to adopt Cardinal Mercier's opinion that
the causality of matter is first receptive and second unitive;
provided always that its essential potentiality be never lost
sight of.
(9) Variant Theories of Matter
The teaching of Aquinas has been given as substantially
identical with that of Aristotle. The main point of divergence
lies in the opinion of Aristotle that the world -- and
consequently matter -- is eternal. St. Thomas, in accepting the
doctrine of Creation, denies the eternity of primordial matter.
It is interesting to note how this doctrine of matter, as the
potential, or determinable, element in change, unites and
corrects the views of Heraclitus, Parmenides, and Plato. The
perpetual flux of the first is found in the continual
transformations that take place in material nature. The
changeless "one" of the second is recognized in the abstract
essences eternally identical with themselves. And the world of
"ideas" of Plato is assigned its place as a world of
intellectual abstractions practised upon the bodies that fall
under the observation of the senses. The universal is immanent
in the individual and multiplied by reason of its matter. In the
system of Plato, matter (me on, apeiron: the "formless and
invisible") is also the condition under which being becomes the
object of the senses. It gives to being all its imperfections.
It is by a mixture of being and nothingness, rather than by the
realization of a potentiality, that sensible things exist. While
for Aristotle matter is a real element of being, for Plato it is
not. Of Neoplatonists, Philo (following Plato and the Stoics)
also considered matter the principle of imperfection, of
limitation and of evil; Plotinus made it empty space, or a pure
possibility of Being.
These systems are mentioned here because through them St.
Augustine drew his knowledge of Greek philosophy. And in the
doctrine of St. Augustine we find the source of an important
current of thought that ran through the Middle Ages. He puts
forward at different times two views as to the nature of matter.
It is first, corporeal substance in a chaotic state; second, an
element of complete indetermination, approaching to the me on of
Plato. St. Augustine was not directly acquainted with the works
of Aristotle, yet he seems to have approached very closely to
this thought (probably through the Latin writings of the
Neoplatonists) in certain passages of the "Confessions" (cf.
Lib. XIII v and xxxiii):
For the changeableness of changeable things is capable of all those
forms to which the changeable are changed. And what is this? Is it
soul? Or body? If it could be said: 'Nothing: something that is and
is not', that would I say . . . 'For from nothing they were made by
Thee, yet not of Thee: nor of anything not Thine, or which was
before, but of concreated matter, because Thou didst create its
informity without any interposition of time.'
St. Augustine does not teach the dependence of quantity upon
matter; and he admits a quasimatter in the angels. Moreover, his
doctrine of the rationes seminales (of Stoical origin), which
found many adherents among later scholastics, clearly assigns to
matter something more than the character of pure potentiality
attributed to it by St. Thomas. It may noted that Albert the
Great, the predecessor of St. Thomas, also taught this doctrine
and, further, was of the opinion that the angelic "forms" must
be held to have a fundamentum, or ground of differentiation,
analogous to matter in corporeal beings.
Following St. Augustine, Alexander of Hales and St. Bonaventure,
with the Franciscan School as a whole, teach that matter is one
of the intrinsic elements of all creatures. Matter and form
together are the principles of individuation for St.
Bonaventure. Duns Scotus is more characteristically subtle on
the point, which is a capital one in his synthesis. Matter is to
be distinguished as:
+ Materia primo prima, the universalized indeterminate element
of contingent beings. This has real and numerical unity.
+ Materia secundo prima, united with "form" and quantified.
+ Materia tertio prima, subject of accidental change in existing
bodies.
For Scotus, who acknowledges his indebtedness to Avicebron for
the doctrine (De rerum princip., Q. viii, a. 4), Materia primo
prima is homogeneous in all creatures without exception. His
system is dualistic. Among later notable scholastics Suarez may
be cited as attributing an existence to primordial matter. This
is a logical consequence of his doctrine that no real
distinction is to be admitted between essence and existence. God
could, he teaches, "preserve matter without a form as He can a
form without matter" (Disput. Metaph., xv, sec. 9). In his
opinion, also, quantified matter no longer appears as the
principle of individuation. A considerable number of theologians
and philosophers have professed his doctrine upon both these
points.
ALBERTUS MAGNUS, Opera (Lyons, 1851); ALEXANDER OF HALES, In
duodecim Aristotelis Metaphysicoe libros (1572); IDEM, Universoe
Theologioe Summa (Cologne, 1622): St. THOMAS AQUINAS, Opera
(Parma, 1852-72), especially the Opuscula De Natura Materioe, De
Principio Individuationis, De Spiritualibus Creaturis, In
Boethium de Trinitate, De Principiis Naturoe, Quodlibet, IX, Q.
iv, De Mixtione Elementorum; ARISTOTLE, Opera (Paris, 1619); ST.
AUGUSTINE, Opera (Antwerp, 1679-1703); ST. BONAVENTURE, Opera
(Paris, 1864-71); CAIETAN, Summa . . . Thomoe a Vio . . .
Commentariis illustrata (Lyons, 1562); DE WULF, Histoire de la
Philosophie Medievale (Louvain); FARGES, Matiere et Forme en
presence des Sciences modernes (Paris, 1892); GROTE, Aristotle
(London, 1873); IDEM, Plato and the other companions of Socrates
(London, 1865); HARPER, The Metaphysics of the School (London,
1879); LORENZELLI, Philosophioe Theoreticoe Institutiones (Rome,
1896); MERCIER, Ontologie (Louvain, 1902); NYS, Cosmologie
(Louvain, 1904); SCOTUS, Opera (Lyons, 1639); SAINT-HILAIRE,
OEuvres d'Aristote (Paris, 1837-92); SUAREZ; Metaphysicarum
disputationum (Mainz, 1605); UEREEWEG: History of Philosophy,
tr. MORRIS (1872); WINDELBAND, A History of Philosophy, tr.
TUFTS (New York, 1893).
FRANCIS AVELING.
Carlo Matteucci
Carlo Matteucci
Physicist, born at Forli, in the Romagna, 21 June, 1811; died at
Ardenza, near Leghorn, 25 July, 1868. He studied mathematics at
the University of Bologna, receiving his doctorate in 1829. Then
he went to the Paris Ecole Polytechnique for two years as a
foreign student. In 1831 he returned to Forli and began to
experiment in physics. In taking up the Voltaic pile he took
sides against Volta's contact theory of electricity. He remained
at Florence until his father's death in 1834, when he went to
Ravenna and later to Pisa. His study of the Voltaic battery led
him to announce the law that the decomposition in the
electrolytic cell corresponds to the work developed in the
elements of the pile. From the external effect it became
possible to calculate the material used up in the pile. In 1837
he was invited by his friend Buoninsegni, president of the
Ravenna Hospital, to take charge of its chemical laboratory and
at the same time assume the title and rank of professor of
physics at the college. There he did most excellent work and
soon became famous. Arago, hearing of the vacancy in the chair
of physics at the University of Pisa, wrote to Humboldt asking
him to recommend Matteucci to the Grand-Duke of Tuscany. This
application was successful and there at Pisa he continued his
researches. Beginning with Arago's and Faraday's discoveries he
developed by ingenious experiments our knowledge of
electrostatics, electro-dynamics, induced currents, and the
like, but his greatest achievements however were in the field of
electro-physiology, with frogs, torpedoes, and the like.
He was also successful as a politician. In 1848 Commissioner of
Tuscany to Charles Albert; sent to Frankfort to plead the cause
of his country before the German Assembly; 1849 in Pisa,
director of the telegraphs of Tuscany; 1859 provisional
representative of Tuscany at Turin, and then sent to Paris with
Peruzzi and Neri Corsini to plead the annexation of Piedmont;
1860 Inspector-General of the telegraph lines of the Italian
Kingdom. Senator at the Tuscan Assembly in 1848, and again in
the Italian Senate in 1860; Minister of Public Instruction,
1862, in the cabinet of Rattazzi. He won the Copley medal of the
Royal Society of London, and was made corresponding member of
the Paris Academy of Sciences in 1844. He published a great deal
in English, French, and Italian journals of science. His larger
works were:
+ "Lezioni di fisica" (4th ed., Pisa, 1858);
+ "Lezioni sui fenomeni fisico-chimici dei corpi viventi" (2nd
ed., Pisa, 1846);
+ "Manuale di telegrafia elettrica" (2nd ed., Pisa, 1851);
+ "Cours special sur l'induction, le magnetisme de rotation",
etc. (Paris, 1854);
+ "Lettres sur l'instruction publique" (Paris, 1864);
+ "Traite des phenomenes electro-physiologiques des animaux"
(Paris, 1844).
WILLIAM FOX
St. Matthew
St. Matthew
Apostle and evangelist. The name Matthew is derived from the
Hebrew Mattija, being shortened to Mattai in post-Biblical
Hebrew. In Greek it is sometimes spelled Maththaios, B D, and
sometimes Matthaios, CEKL, but grammarians do not agree as to
which of the two spellings is the original. Matthew is spoken of
five times in the New Testament; first in Matthew 9:9, when
called by Jesus to follow Him, and then four times in the list
of the Apostles, where he is mentioned in the seventh (Luke
6:15, and Mark 3:18), and again in the eighth place (Matthew
10:3, and Acts 1:13). The man designated in Matthew 9:9, as
"sitting in the custom house", and "named Matthew" is the same
as Levi, recorded in Mark 2:14, and Luke 5:27, as "sitting at
the receipt of custom". The account in the three Synoptics is
identical, the vocation of Matthew-Levi being alluded to in the
same terms. Hence Levi was the original name of the man who was
subsequently called Matthew; the Maththaios legomenos of Matthew
9:9, would indicate this. The fact of one man having two names
is of frequent occurrence among the Jews. It is true that the
same person usually bears a Hebrew name such as "Shaoul" and a
Greek name, Paulos. However, we have also examples of
individuals with two Hebrew names as, for instance,
Joseph-Caiaphas, Simon-Cephas, etc. It is probable that Mattija,
"gift of Iaveh", was the name conferred upon the tax-gatherer by
Jesus Christ when He called him to the Apostolate, and by it he
was thenceforth known among his Christian brethren, Levi being
his original name. Matthew, the son of Alpheus (Mark 2:14) was a
Galilean, although Eusebius informs us that he was a Syrian. As
tax-gatherer at Capharnaum, he collected custom duties for Herod
Antipas, and, although a Jew, was despised by the Pharisees, who
hated all publicans. When summoned by Jesus, Matthew arose and
followed Him and tendered Him a feast in his house, where
tax-gatherers and sinners sat at table with Christ and His
disciples. This drew forth a protest from the Pharisees whom
Jesus rebuked in these consoling words: "I came not to call the
just, but sinners". No further allusion is made to Matthew in
the Gospels, except in the list of the Apostles. As a disciple
and an Apostle he thenceforth followed Christ, accompanying Him
up to the time of His Passion and, in Galilee, was one of the
witnesses of His Resurrection. He was also amongst the Apostles
who were present at the Ascension, and afterwards withdrew to an
upper chamber, in Jerusalem, praying in union with Mary, the
Mother of Jesus, and with his brethren (Acts 1:10 and 1:14).
Of Matthew's subsequent career we have only inaccurate or
legendary data. St. Irenaeus tells us that Matthew preached the
Gospel among the Hebrews, St. Clement of Alexandria claiming
that he did this for fifteen years, and Eusebius maintains that,
before going into other countries, he gave them his Gospel in
the mother tongue. Ancient writers are not as one as to the
countries evangelized by Matthew, but almost all mention
Ethiopia to the south of the Caspian Sea (not Ethiopia in
Africa), and some Persia and the kingdom of the Parthians,
Macedonia, and Syria. According to Heracleon, who is quoted by
Clement of Alexandria, Matthew did not die a martyr, but this
opinion conflicts with all other ancient testimony. Let us add,
however, that the account of his martyrdom in the apocryphal
Greek writings entitled "Martyrium S. Matthaei in Ponto" and
published by Bonnet, "Acta apostolorum apocrypha" (Leipzig,
1898), is absolutely devoid of historic value. Lipsius holds
that this "Martyrium S. Matthaei", which contains traces of
Gnosticism, must have been published in the third century. There
is a disagreement as to the place of St. Matthew's martyrdom and
the kind of torture inflicted on him, therefore it is not known
whether he was burned, stoned, or beheaded. The Roman
Martyrology simply says: "S. Matthaei, qui in AEthiopia
praedicans martyrium passus est". Various writings that are now
considered apocryphal, have been attributed to St. Matthew. In
the "Evangelia apocrypha" (Leipzig, 1876), Tischendorf
reproduced a Latin document entitled: "De Ortu beatae Mariae et
infantia Salvatoris", supposedly written in Hebrew by St.
Matthew the Evangelist, and translated into Latin by Jerome, the
priest. It is an abridged adaptation of the "Protoevangelium" of
St. James, which was a Greek apocryphal of the second century.
This pseudo-Matthew dates from the middle or the end of the
sixth century. The Latin Church celebrates the feast of St.
Matthew on 21 September, and the Greek Church on 16 November.
St. Matthew is represented under the symbol of a winged man,
carrying in his hand a lance as a characteristic emblem.
E. JACQUIER
Gospel of St. Matthew
Gospel of St. Matthew
I. CANONICITY
The earliest Christian communities looked upon the books of the
Old Testament as Sacred Scripture, and read them at their
religious assemblies. That the Gospels, which contained the
words of Christ and the narrative of His life, soon enjoyed the
same authority as the Old Testament, is made clear by Hegesippus
(Eusebius, "Hist. eccl.", IV, xxii, 3), who tells us that in
every city the Christians were faithful to the teachings of the
law, the prophets, and the Lord. A book was acknowledged as
canonical when the Church regarded it as Apostolic, and had it
read at her assemblies. Hence, to establish the canonicity of
the Gospel according to St. Matthew, we must investigate
primitive Christian tradition for the use that was made of this
document, and for indications proving that it was regarded as
Scripture in the same manner as the Books of the Old Testament.
The first traces that we find of it are not indubitable, because
post-Apostolic writers quoted the texts with a certain freedom,
and principally because it is difficult to say whether the
passages thus quoted were taken from oral tradition or from a
written Gospel. The first Christian document whose date can be
fixed with comparative certainty (95-98), is the Epistle of St.
Clement to the Corinthians. It contains sayings of the Lord
which closely resemble those recorded in the First Gospel
(Clement, xvi, 17 = Matt., xi, 29; Clem., xxiv, 5 = Matt., xiii,
3), but it is possible that they are derived from Apostolic
preaching, as, in chapter xiii, 2, we find a mixture of
sentences from Matthew, Luke, and an unknown source. Again, we
note a similar commingling of Evangelical texts elsewhere in the
same Epistle of Clement, in the Doctrine of the Twelve Apostles,
in the Epistle of Polycarp, and in Clement of Alexandria.
Whether these these texts were thus combined in oral tradition
or emanated from a collection of Christ's utterances, we are
unable to say.
+ The Epistles of St. Ignatius (martyred 110-17) contain no
literal quotation from the Holy Books; nevertheless, St.
Ignatius borrowed expressions and some sentences from Matthew
("Ad Polyc.", ii, 2 = Matt., x, 16; "Eph.", xiv, 2 = Matt.,
xii, 33, etc.). In his "Epistle to the Philadelphians" (v,
12), he speaks of the Gospel in which he takes refuge as in
the Flesh of Jesus; consequently, he had an evangelical
collection which he regarded as Sacred Writ, and we cannot
doubt that the Gospel of St. Matthew formed part of it.
+ In the Epistle of Polycarp (110-17), we find various passages
from St. Matthew quoted literally (xii, 3 = Matt., v. 44; vii,
2 = Matt., xxvi, 41, etc.).
+ The Doctrine of the Twelve Apostles (Didache) contains
sixty-six passages that recall the Gospel of Matthew; some of
them are literal quotations (viii, 2 = Matt., vi, 7-13; vii, I
= Matt., xxviii 19; xi, 7 = Matt., xii, 31, etc.).
+ In the so-called Epistle of Barnabas (117-30), we find a
passage from St. Matthew (xxii, 14), introduced by the
scriptural formula, os gegraptai, which proves that the author
considered the Gospel of Matthew equal in point of authority
to the writings of the Old Testament.
+ The "Shepherd of Hermas" has several passages which bear close
resemblance to passages of Matthew, but not a single literal
quotation from it.
+ In his "Dialogue" (xcix, 8), St. Justin quotes, almost
literally, the prayer of Christ in the Garden of Olives, in
Matthew, xxvi, 39,40.
+ A great number of passages in the writings of St. Justin
recall the Gospel of Matthew, and prove that he ranked it
among the Memoirs of the Apostles which, he said, were called
Gospels (I Apol., lxvi), were read in the services of the
Church (ibid., @i), and were consequently regarded as
Scripture.
+ In his "Legatio pro christianis", xii, 11, Athenagoras (117)
quotes almost literally sentences taken from the Sermon on the
Mount (Matt., v, 44).
+ Theophilus of Antioch (Ad Autol., III, xiii-xiv) quotes a
passage from Matthew (v, 28, 32), and, according to St. Jerome
(In Matt. Prol.), wrote a commentary on the Gospel of St.
Matthew.
+ We find in the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs--drawn up,
according to some critics, about the middle of the second
century--numerous passages that closely resemble the Gospel of
Matthew (Test. Gad, v, 3; vi, 6; v, 7 = Matt., xviii, 15, 35;
Test. Jos., i, 5, 6 = Matt., xxv, 35, 36, etc.), but Dr.
Charles maintains that the Testaments were written in Hebrew
in the first century before Jesus Christ, and translated into
Greek towards the middle of the same century. In this event,
the Gospel of Matthew would depend upon the Testaments and not
the Testaments upon the Gospel. The question is not yet
settled, but it seems to us that there is a greater
probability that the Testaments, at least in their Greek
version, are of later date than the Gospel of Matthew, they
certainly received numerous Christian additions.
+ The Greek text of the Clementine Homilies contains some
quotations from Matthew (Hom. iii, 52 = Matt., xv, 13); in
Hom. xviii, 15, the quotation from Matt., xiii, 35, is
literal.
+ Passages which suggest the Gospel of Matthew might be quoted
from heretical writings of the second century and from
apocryphal gospels--the Gospel of Peter, the Protoevangelium
of James, etc., in which the narratives, to a considerable
extent, are derived from the Gospel of Matthew.
+ Tatian incorporated the Gospel of Matthew in his
"Diatesseron"; we shall quote below the testimonies of Papias
and St. Irenaeus. For the latter, the Gospel of Matthew, from
which he quotes numerous passages, was one of the four that
constituted the quadriform Gospel dominated by a single
spirit.
+ Tertullian (Adv. Marc., IV, ii) asserts, that the
"Instrumentum evangelicum" was composed by the Apostles, and
mentions Matthew as the author of a Gospel (De carne Christi,
xii).
+ Clement of Alexandria (Strom., III, xiii) speaks of the four
Gospels that have been transmitted, and quotes over three
hundred passages from the Gospel of Matthew, which he
introduces by the formula, en de to kata Maththaion euaggelio
or by phesin ho kurios.
It is unnecessary to pursue our inquiry further. About the
middle of the third century, the Gospel of Matthew was received
by the whole Christian Church as a Divinely inspired document,
and consequently as canonical. The testimony of Origen ("In
Matt.", quoted by Eusebius, "Hist. eccl.", III, xxv, 4), of
Eusebius (op. cit., III, xxiv, 5; xxv, 1), and of St. Jerome
("De Viris Ill.", iii, "Prolog. in Matt.,") are explicit in this
repsect. It might be added that this Gospel is found in the most
ancient versions: Old Latin, Syriac, and Egyptian. Finally, it
stands at the head of the Books of the New Testament in the
Canon of the Council of Laodicea (363) and in that of St.
Athanasius (326-73), and very probably it was in the last part
of the Muratorian Canon. Furthermore, the canonicity of the
Gospel of St. Matthew is accepted by the entire Christian world.
II. AUTHENTICITY OF THE FIRST GOSPEL
The question of authenticity assumes an altogether special
aspect in regard to the First Gospel. The early Christian
writers assert that St. Matthew wrote a Gospel in Hebrew; this
Hebrew Gospel has, however, entirely disappeared, and the Gospel
which we have, and from which ecclesiastical writers borrow
quotations as coming from the Gospel of Matthew, is in Greek.
What connection is there between this Hebrew Gospel and this
Greek Gospel, both of which tradition ascribes to St. Matthew?
Such is the problem that presents itself for solution. Let us
first examine the facts.
A. TESTIMONY OF TRADITION
According to Eusebius (Hist. eccl., 111, xxxix, 16), Papias said
that Matthew collected (synetaxato; or, according to two
manuscripts, synegraphato, composed) ta logia (the oracles or
maxims of Jesus) in the Hebrew (Aramaic) language, and that each
one translated them as best he could.
Three questions arise in regard to this testimony of Papias on
Matthew: (1) What does the word logia signify? Does it mean only
detached sentences or sentences incorporated in a narrative,
that is to say, a Gospel such as that of St. Matthew? Among
classical writers, logion, the diminutive of logos, signifies
the "answer of oracles", a "prophecy"; in the Septuagint and in
Philo, "oracles of God" (ta deka logia, the Ten Commandments).
It sometimes has a broader meaning and seems to include both
facts and sayings. In the New Testament the signification of the
word logion is doubtful, and if, strictly speaking, it may be
claimed to indicate teachings and narratives, the meaning
"oracles" is the more natural. However, writers contemporary
with Papias--e. g. St. Clement of Rome (Ad Cor., liii), St.
Irenaeus (Adv. Haer., I, viii, 2), Clement of Alexandria
(Strom., I, cccxcii), and Origen (De Princip., IV, xi)--have
used it to designate facts and savings. The work of Papias was
entitled "Exposition of the Oracles" [ logion] of the Lord", and
it also contained narratives (Eusebius, "Hist. eccl.", III,
xxxix, 9). On the other hand, speaking of the Gospel of Mark,
Papias says that this Evangelist wrote all that Christ had said
and done, but adds that he established no connection between the
Lord's sayings (suntaxin ton kuriakon logion). We may believe
that here logion comprises all that Christ said and did.
Nevertheless, it would seem that, if the two passages on Mark
and Matthew followed each other in Papias as in Eusebius, the
author intended to emphasize a difference between them, by
implying that Mark recorded the Lord's words and deeds and
Matthew chronicled His discourses. The question is still
unsolved; it is, however, possible that, in Papias, the term
logia means deeds and teachings.
(2) Second, does Papias refer to oral or written translations of
Matthew, when he says that each one translated the sayings "as
best he could"? As there is nowhere any allusion to numerous
Greek translations of the Logia of Matthew, it is probable that
Papias speaks here of the oral translations made at Christian
meetings, similar to the extemporaneous translations of the Old
Testament made in the synagogues. This would explain why Papias
mentions that each one (each reader) translated "as best he
could".
(3) Finally, were the Logia of Matthew and the Gospel to which
ecclesiastical writers refer written in Hebrew or Aramaic? Both
hypotheses are held. Papias says that Matthew wrote the Logia in
the Hebrew (Hebraidi) language; St. Irenaeus and Eusebius
maintain that he wrote his gospel for the Hebrews in their
national language, and the same assertion is found in several
writers. Matthew would, therefore, seem to have written in
modernized Hebrew, the language then used by the scribes for
teaching. But, in the time of Christ, the national language of
the Jews was Aramaic, and when, in the New Testament, there is
mention of the Hebrew language (Hebrais dialektos), it is
Aramaic that is implied. Hence, the aforesaid writers may allude
to the Aramaic and not to the Hebrew. Besides, as they assert,
the Apostle Matthew wrote his Gospel to help popular teaching.
To be understood by his readers who spoke Aramaic, he would have
had to reproduce the original catechesis in this language, and
it cannot be imagined why, or for whom, he should have taken the
trouble to write it in Hebrew, when it would have had to be
translated thence into Aramaic for use in religious services.
Moreover, Eusebius (Hist. eccl., III, xxiv, 6) tells us that the
Gospel of Matthew was a reproduction of his preaching, and this
we know, was in Aramaic. An investigation of the Semitic idioms
observed in the Gospel does not permit us to conclude as to
whether the original was in Hebrew or Aramaic, as the two
languages are so closely related. Besides, it must be home in
mind that the greater part of these Semitisms simply reproduce
colloquial Greek and are not of Hebrew or Aramaic origin.
However, we believe the second hypothesis to be the more
probable, viz., that Matthew wrote his Gospel in Aramaic.
Let us now recall the testimony of the other ecclesiastical
writers on the Gospel of St. Matthew. St. Irenaeus (Adv. Haer.,
III, i, 2) affirms that Matthew published among the Hebrews a
Gospel which he wrote in their own language. Eusebius (Hist.
eccl., V, x, 3) says that, in India, Pantaenus found the Gospel
according to St. Matthew written in the Hebrew language, the
Apostle Bartholomew having left it there. Again, in his "Hist.
eccl." (VI xxv, 3, 4), Eusebius tells us that Origen, in his
first book on the Gospel of St. Matthew, states that he has
learned from tradition that the First Gospel was written by
Matthew, who, having composed it in Hebrew, published it for the
converts from Judaism. According to Eusebius (Hist. eccl., III,
xxiv, 6), Matthew preached first to the Hebrews and, when
obliged to go to other countries, gave them his Gospel written
in his native tongue. St. Jerome has repeatedly declared that
Matthew wrote his Gospel in Hebrew ("Ad Damasum", xx; "Ad
Hedib.", iv), but says that it is not known with certainty who
translated it into Greek. St. Cyril of Jerusalem, St. Gregory of
Nazianzus, St. Epiphanius, St. John Chrysostom, St. Augustine,
etc., and all the commentators of the Middle Ages repeat that
Matthew wrote his Gospel in Hebrew. Erasmus was the first to
express doubts on this subject: "It does not seem probable to me
that Matthew wrote in Hebrew, since no one testifies that he has
seen any trace of such a volume." This is not accurate, as St.
Jerome uses Matthew's Hebrew text several times to solve
difficulties of interpretation, which proves that he had it at
hand. Pantaenus also had it, as, according to St. Jerome ("De
Viris Ill.", xxxvi), he brought it back to Alexandria. However,
the testimony of Pantaenus is only second-hand, and that of
Jerome remains rather ambiguous, since in neither case is it
positively known that the writer did not mistake the Gospel
according to the Hebrews (written of course in Hebrew) for the
Hebrew Gospel of St. Matthew. However all ecclesiastical writers
assert that Matthew wrote his Gospel in Hebrew, and, by quoting
the Greek Gospel and ascribing it to Matthew, thereby affirm it
to be a translation of the Hebrew Gospel.
B. EXAMINATION OF THE GREEK GOSPEL OF ST. MATTHEW
Our chief object is to ascertain whether the characteristics of
the Greek Gospel indicate that it is a translation from the
Aramaic, or that it is an original document; but, that we may
not have to revert to the peculiarities of the Gospel of
Matthew, we shall here treat them in full.
(1) The Language of the Gospel
St. Matthew used about 1475 words, 137 of which are apax
legomena (words used by him alone of all the New Testament
writers). Of these latter 76 are classical; 21 are found in the
Septuagint; 15 (battologein biastes, eunouchizein etc.) were
introduced for the first time by Matthew, or at least he was the
first writer in whom they were discovered; 8 words (aphedon,
gamizein, etc.) were employed for the first time by Matthew and
Mark, and 15 others (ekchunesthai, epiousios, etc.) by Matthew
and another New Testament writer. It is probable that, at the
time of the Evangelist, all these words were in current use.
Matthew's Gospel contains many peculiar expressions which help
to give decided colour to his style. Thus, he employs
thirty-four times the expression basileia ton ouranon; this is
never found in Mark and Luke, who, in parallel passages, replace
it by basileia tou theou, which also occurs four times in
Matthew. We must likewise note the expressions: ho pater ho
epouranions, ho en tois ouranois, sunteleia tou alonos,
sunairein logon, eipein ti kata tinos, mechri tes semeron,
poiesai os, osper, en ekeino to kairo, egeiresthai apo, etc. The
same terms often recur: tote (90 times), apo tote, kai idou etc.
He adopts the Greek form Ierisiluma for Jerusalem, and not
Ierousaleu, which he uses but once. He has a predilection for
the preposition apo, using it even when Mark and Luke use ek,
and for the expression uios David. Moreover, Matthew is fond of
repeating a phrase or a special construction several times
within quite a short interval (cf. ii, 1, 13, and 19; iv, 12,
18, and v, 2; viii, 2-3 and 28; ix, 26 and 31; xiii, 44, 4.5,
and 47, etc.). Quotations from the Old Testament are variously
introduced, as: outos, kathos gegraptai, ina, or opos, plerothe
to rethen uto Kuriou dia tou prophetou, etc. These peculiarities
of language, especially the repetition of the same words and
expressions, would indicate that the Greek Gospel was an
original rather than a translation, and this is confirmed by the
paronomasiae (battologein, polulogia; kophontai kai ophontai,
etc.), which ought not to have been found in the Aramaic, by the
employment of the genitive absolute, and, above all, by the
linking of clauses through the use of men . . . oe, a
construction that is peculiarly Greek. However, let us observe
that these various characteristics prove merely that the writer
was thoroughly conversant with his language, and that he
translated his text rather freely. Besides, these same
characteristics are noticeable in Christ's sayings, as well as
in the narratives, and, as these utterances were made in
Aramaic, they were consequently translated; thus, the
construction men . . . de (except in one instance) and all the
examples of paronomasia occur in discourses of Christ. The fact
that the genitive absolute is used mainly in the narrative
portions, only denotes that the latter were more freely
translated; besides, Hebrew possesses an analogous grammatical
construction. On the other hand, a fair number of Hebraisms are
noticed in Matthew's Gospel (ouk eginosken auten, omologesei en
emoi, el exestin, ti emin kai soi, etc.), which favour the
belief that the original was Aramaic. Still, it remains to be
proved that these Hebraisms are not colloquial Greek
expressions.
(2) General Character of the Gospel
Distinct unity of plan, an artificial arrangement of
subject-matter, and a simple, easy style--much purer than that
of Mark--suggest an original rather than a translation. When the
First Gospel is compared with books translated from the Hebrew,
such as those of the Septuagint, a marked difference is at once
apparent. The original Hebrew shines through every line of the
latter, whereas, in the First Gospel Hebraisms are comparatively
rare, and are merely such as might be looked for in a book
written by a Jew and reproducing Jewish teaching. However, these
observations are not conclusive in favour of a Greek original.
In the first place, the unity of style that prevails throughout
the book, would rather prove that we have a translation. It is
certain that a good portion of the matter existed first in
Aramaic--at all events, the sayings of Christ, and thus almost
three-quarters of the Gospel. Consequently, these at least the
Greek writer has translated. And, since no difference in
language and style can be detected between the sayings of Christ
and the narratives that are claimed to have been composed in
Greek, it would seem that these latter are also translated from
the Aramaic. This conclusion is based on the fact that they are
of the same origin as the discourses. The unity of plan and the
artificial arrangement of subject-matter could as well have been
made in Matthew's Aramaic as in the Greek document; the fine
Greek construction, the lapidary style, the elegance and good
order claimed as characteristic of the Gospel, are largely a
matter of opinion, the proof being that critics do not agree on
this question. Although the phraseology is not more Hebraic than
in the other Gospels, still it not much less so. To sum up, from
the literary examination of the Greek Gospel no certain
conclusion can be drawn against the existence of a Hebrew Gospel
of which our First Gospel would be a translation; and inversely,
this examination does not prove the Greek Gospel to be a
translation of an Aramaic original.
(3) Quotations from the Old Testament
It is claimed that most of the quotations from the Old Testament
are borrowed from the Septuagint, and that this fact proves that
the Gospel of Matthew was composed in Greek. The first
proposition is not accurate, and, even if it were, it would not
necessitate this conclusion. Let us examine the facts. As
established by Stanton ("The Gospels as Historical Documents",
II, Cambridge, 1909, p. 342), the quotations from the Old
Testament in the First Gospel are divided into two classes. In
the first are ranged all those quotations the object of which is
to show that the prophecies have been realized in the events of
the life of Jesus. They are introduced by the words: "Now all
this was done that it might be fulfilled which the Lord spoke by
the prophet," or other similar expressions. The quotations of
this class do not in general correspond exactly with any
particular text. Three among them (ii, 15; viii, 17; xxvii, 9,
10) are borrowed from the Hebrew; five (ii, 18; iv, 15, 16; xii,
18-21; xiii, 35; xxi, 4, 5) bear points of resemblance to the
Septuagint, but were not borrowed from that version. In the
answer of the chief priests and scribes to Herod (ii, 6), the
text of the Old Testament is slightly modified, without,
however, conforming either to the Hebrew or the Septuagint. The
Prophet Micheas writes (v, 2): "And thou Bethlehem, Ephrata, art
a little one among the thousands of Juda"; whereas Matthew says
(ii, 6): " And thou Bethlehem the land of Juda art not the least
among the princes of Juda". A single quotation of this first
class (iii, 3) conforms to the Septuagint, and another (i, 23)
is almost conformable. These quotations are to be referred to
the first Evangelist himself, and relate to facts, principally
to the birth of Jesus (i, ii), then to the mission of John the
Baptist, the preaching of the Gospel by Jesus in Galilee, the
miracles of Jesus, etc. It is surprising that the narratives of
the Passion and the Resurrection of Our Lord, the fulfilment of
the very clear and numerous prophecies of the Old Testament,
should never be brought into relation with these prophecies.
Many critics, e. g. Burkitt and Stanton, think that the
quotations of the first class are borrowed from a collection of
Messianic passages, Stanton being of opinion that they were
accompanied by the event that constituted their realization.
This "catena of fulfilments of prophecy", as he calls it,
existed originally in Aramaic, but whether the author of the
First Gospel had a Greek translation of it is uncertain. The
second class of quotations from the Old Testament is chiefly
composed of those repeated either by the Lord or by His
interrogators. Except in two passages, they are introduced by
one of the formula: "It is written"; "As it is written"; "Have
you not read?" "Moses said". Where Matthew alone quotes the
Lord's words, the quotation is sometimes borrowed from the
Septuagint (v, 21 a, 27, 38), or, again, it is a free
translation which we are unable to refer to any definite text
(v, 21 b, 23, 43). In those Passages where Matthew runs parallel
with Mark and Luke or with either of them, all the quotations
save one (xi, 10) are taken almost literally from the
Septuagint.
(4) Analogy to the Gospels of St. Mark and St. Luke
From a first comparison of the Gospel of Matthew with the two
other Synoptic Gospels we find
+ that 330 verses are peculiar to it alone; that it has between
330 and 370 in common with both the others, from 170 to 180
with Mark's, and from 230 to 240 with Luke's;
+ that in like parts the same ideas are expressed sometimes in
identical and sometimes in different terms; that Matthew and
Mark most frequently use the same expressions, Matthew seldom
agreeing with Luke against Mark. The divergence in their use
of the same expressions is in the number of a noun or the use
of two different tenses of the same verb. The construction of
sentences is at times identical and at others different.
+ That the order of narrative is, with certain exceptions which
we shall later indicate, almost the same in Matthew, Mark, and
Luke.
These facts indicate that the three Synoptists are not
independent of one another. They borrow their subject-matter
from the same oral source or else from the same written
documents. To declare oneself upon this alternative, it would be
necessary to treat the synoptic question, and on this critics
have not vet agreed. We shall, therefore, restrict ourselves to
what concerns the Gospel of St. Matthew. From a second
comparison of this Gospel with Mark and Luke we ascertain:
+ that Mark is to be found almost complete in Matthew, with
certain divergences which we shall note;
+ that Matthew records many of our Lord's discourses in common
with Luke;
+ that Matthew has special passages which are unknown to Mark
and Luke.
Let us examine these three points in detail, in an endeavour to
learn how the Gospel of Matthew was composed.
(a) Analogy to Mark
+ Mark is found complete in Matthew, with the exception of
numerous slight omissions and the following pericopes: Mark,
i, 23-28, 35-39; iv, 26-29; vii, 32-36; viii, 22-26; ix, 39,
40; xii, 41-44. In all, 31 verses are omitted.
+ The general order is identical except that, in chapters
v-xiii, Matthew groups facts of the same nature and savings
conveying the same ideas. Thus, in Matt., viii, 1-15, we have
three miracles that are separated in Mark; in Matthew, viii,
23-ix, 9, there are gathered together incidents otherwise
arranged in Mark, etc. Matthew places sentences in a different
environment from that given them by Mark. For instance, in
chapter v, 15, Matthew inserts a verse occurring in Mark, iv,
21, that should have been placed after xiii, 23, etc.
+ In Matthew the narrative is usually shorter because he
suppresses a great number of details. Thus, in Mark, we read:
"And the wind ceased: and there was made a great calm",
whereas in Matthew the first part of the sentence is omitted.
All unnecessary particulars are dispensed with, such as the
numerous picturesque features and indications of time, place,
and number, in which Mark's narrative abounds.
+ Sometimes, however, Matthew is the more detailed. Thus, in
chapter xii, 22-45, he gives more of Christ's discourse than
we find in Mark, iii, 20-30, and has in addition a dialogue
between Jesus and the scribes. In chapter xiii, Matthew dwells
at greater length than Mark, iv, upon the object of the
parables, and introduces those of the cockle and the leaven,
neither of which Mark records. Moreover, Our Lord's
apocalyptic discourse is much longer in Matthew, xxiv-xxv (97
verses), than in Mark, xiii (37 verses).
+ Changes of terms or divergences in the mode of expression are
extremely frequent. Thus, Matthew often uses eutheos, when
Mark has euthus; men . . . de, instead of kai, as in Mark,
etc.; the aorist instead of the imperfect employed by Mark. He
avoids double negatives and the construction of the participle
with eimi; his style is more correct and less harsh than that
of Mark; he resolves Mark's compound verbs, and replaces by
terms in current use the rather unusual expressions introduced
by Mark, etc.
+ He is free from the lack of precision which, to a slight
extent, characterizes Mark. Thus, Matthew says "the tetrarch"
and not "the king" as Mark does, in speaking of Herod Antipas;
"on the third day" instead.of "in three days". At times the
changes are more important. Instead of "Levi, son of Alpheus,"
he says: "a man named Matthew"; he mentions two demoniacs and
two blind persons, whereas Mark mentions only one of each,
etc.
+ Matthew extenuates or omits everything which, in Mark, might
be construed in a sense derogatory to the Person of Christ or
unfavourable to the disciples. Thus, in speaking of Jesus, he
suppresses the following phrases: "And looking round about on
them with anger" (Mark, iii, 5); "And when his friends had
heard of it, they went out to lay hold on him. For they said:
He is beside himself" (Mark, iii, 21), etc. Speaking of the
disciples, he does not say, like Mark, that "they understood
not the word, and they were afraid to ask him" (ix, 3 1; cf.
viii, 17, 18); or that the disciples were in a state of
profound amazement, because "they understood not concerning
the loaves; for their heart was blinded" (vi, 52), etc. He
likewise omits whatever might shock his readers, as the saying
of the Lord recorded by Mark: "The sabbath was made for man,
and not man for the sabbath" (ii, 27). Omissions or
alterations of this kind are very numerous. It must, however,
be remarked that between Matthew and Mark there are many
points of resemblance in the construction of sentences (Matt.,
ix, 6 Mark, ii, 10; Matt., xxvi, 47 = Mark, xiv, 43, etc.); in
their mode of expression, often unusual. and in short phrases
(Matt.. ix, 16 = Mark. ii, 21; Matt., xvi, 28 Mark, ix, 1:
Matt., xx, 25 = Mark, x, 42); in some pericopes, narratives,
or discourses, where the greater part of the terms are
identical (Matt., iv, 18-22 Mark, i, 16-20; Matt., xxvi, 36-38
= Mark, xiv, 32-34; Matt., ix, 5, 6 = Mark, ii, 9-11), etc.
(b) Analogy to Luke
A comparison of Matthew and Luke reveals that they have but one
narrative in common, viz., the cure of the centurion's servant
(Matt., viii, 5-13 = Luke, vii, 1-10). The additional matter
common to these Evangelists, consists of the discourses and
sayings of Christ. In Matthew His discourses are usually
gathered together, whereas in Luke they are more frequently
scattered. Nevertheless, Matthew and Luke have in common the
following discourses: the Sermon on the Mount (Matt., v-vii the
Sermon in the Plain, Luke, vi); the Lord's exhortation to His
disciples whom He sends forth on a mission (Matt., x, 19-20,
26-33 = Luke, xii, 11-12, 2-9); the discourse on John the
Baptist (Matt., xi = Luke, vii); the discourse on the Last
Judgment (Matt., xxiv Luke, xvii). Moreover, these two
Evangelists possess in common a large number of detached
sentences, e. g., Matt., iii, 7b-19, 12 = Luke. iii, 7b-9, 17;
Matt., iv, 3-11 = Luke, iv, 3-13; Matt., ix, 37, 38 = Luke x, 2;
Matt., xii, 43-45 = Luke, xi, 24-26 etc. (cf. Rushbrooke,
"Synopticon", pp. 134-70). However, in these parallel passages
of Matthew and Luke there are numerous differences of
expression, and even some divergences in ideas or in the manner
of their presentation. It is only necessary to recall the
Beatitudes (Matt., v, 3-12 = Luke, vi, 20b-25): in Matthew there
are eight beatitudes, whereas in Luke there are only four,
which, while approximating to Matthew's In point of conception,
differ from them in general form and expression. In addition to
having in common parts that Mark has not, Matthew and Luke
sometimes agree against Mark in parallel narratives. There have
been counted 240 passages wherein Matthew and Luke harmonize
with each other, but disagree with Mark in the way of presenting
events, and particularly in the use of the same terms and the
same grammatical emendations. Matthew and Luke omit the very
pericopes that occur in Mark.
(c) Parts peculiar to Matthew
These are numerous, as Matthew has 330 verses that are
distinctly his own. Sometimes long passages occur, such as those
recording the Nativity and early Childhood (i, ii), the cure of
the two blind men and one dumb man (ix, 27-34), the death of
Judas (xxvii, 3-10), the guard placed at the Sepulchre (xxvii,
62-66), the imposture of the chief priests (xxviii, 11-15), the
apparition of Jesus in Galilee (xxviii, 16-20), a great portion
of the Sermon on the Mount (v, 17-37; vi, 1-8; vii, 12-23),
parables (xiii, 24-30; 35-53; xxv, 1-13), the Last Judgment
(xxv, 31-46), etc., and sometimes detached sentences, as in
xxiii, 3, 28, 33; xxvii, 25, etc. (cf. Rushbrooke, "Synopticon",
pp.171-97). Those passages in which Matthew reminds us that
facts in the life of Jesus are the fulfilment of the prophecies,
are likewise noted as peculiar to him, but of this we have
already spoken.
These various considerations have given rise to a great number
of hypotheses, varying in detail, but agreeing fundamentally.
According to the majority of present critics--H. Holtzmann,
Wendt, Juelicher, Wernle, von Soden, Wellhausen, Harnack, B.
Weiss, Nicolardot, W. Allen, Montefiore, Plummer, and
Stanton--the author of the First Gospel used two documents: the
Gospel of Mark in its present or in an earlier form, and a
collection of discourses or sayings, which is designated by the
letter Q. The repetitions occurring in Matthew (v, 29, 30 =
xviii, 8, 9; v, 32 xix, 9; x, 22a = xxiv, 9b; xii, 39b = xvi,
4a, etc.) may be explained by the fact that two sources
furnished the writer with material for his Gospel. Furthermore,
Matthew used documents of his own. In this hypothesis the Greek
Gospel is supposed to be original. and not the translation of a
complete Aramaic Gospel. It is admitted that the collection of
sayings was originally Aramaic, but it is disputed whether the
Evangelist had it in this form or in that of a Greek
translation. Critics also differ regarding the manner in which
Matthew used the sources. Some would have it that Matthew the
Apostle was not the author of the First Gospel, but merely the
collector of the sayings of Christ mentioned by Papias.
"However", says Juelicher, "the author's individuality is so
strikingly evident in his style and tendencies that it is
impossible to consider the Gospel a mere compilation". Most
critics are of a like opinion. Endeavours have been made to
reconcile the information furnished by tradition with the facts
resulting from the study of the Gospel as follows: Matthew was
known to have collected in Aramaic the sayings of Christ, and,
on the other hand, there existed at the beginning of the second
century a Gospel containing the narratives found in Mark and the
sayings gathered by Matthew in Aramaic. It is held that the
Greek Gospel ascribed to Matthew is a translation of it, made by
him or by other translators whose names it was later attempted
to ascertain.
To safeguard tradition further, while taking into consideration
the facts we have already noted, it might be supposed that the
three Synoptists worked upon the same catechesis, either oral or
written and originally in Aramaic, and that they had detached
portions of this catechesis, varying in literary condition. The
divergences may be explained first by this latter fact, and then
by the hypothesis of different translations and by each
Evangelist's peculiar method of treating the subject-matter,
Matthew and Luke especially having adapted it to the purpose of
their Gospel. There is nothing to prevent the supposition that
Matthew worked on the Aramaic catechesis; the literary
emendations of Mark's text by Matthew may have been due to the
translator, who was more conversant with Greek than was the
popular preacher who furnished the catechesis reproduced by
Mark. In reality, the only difficulty lies in explaining the
similarity of style between Matthew and Mark. First of all, we
may observe that the points of resemblance are less numerous
than they are said to be. As we have seen, they are very rare in
the narratives at all events, much more so than in the
discourses of Christ. Why, then, should we not suppose that the
three Synoptists, depending upon the same Aramaic catechesis,
sometimes agreed in rendering similar Aramaic expressions in the
same Greek words? It is also possible to suppose that sayings of
Christ, which in the three Synoptic Gospels (or in two of them)
differed only in a few expressions, were unified by copyists or
other persons. To us it seems probable that Matthew's Greek
translator used Mark's Greek Gospel, especially for Christ's
discourses. Luke, also, may have similarly utilized Matthew's
Greek Gospel in rendering the discourses of Christ. Finally,
even though we should suppose that Matthew were the author only
of the Logia, the full scope of which we do not know, and that a
part of his Greek Gospel is derived from that of Mark, we would
still have a right to ascribe this First Gospel to Matthew as
its principal author.
Other hypotheses have been put forth. In Zahn's opinion, Matthew
wrote a complete Gospel in Aramaic; Mark was familiar with this
document, which he used while abridging it. Matthew's Greek
translator utilized Mark, but only for form, whereas Luke
depended upon Mark and secondary sources, but was not acquainted
with Matthew. According to Belser, Matthew first wrote his
Gospel in Hebrew, a Greek translation of it being made in 59-60,
and Mark depended on Matthew's Aramaic document and Peter's
preaching. Luke made use of Mark, of Matthew (both in Aramaic
and Greek), and also of oral tradition. According to Camerlynck
and Coppieters, the First Gospel in its present form was
composed either by Matthew or some other Apostolic writer long
before the end of the first century, by combining the Aramaic
work of Matthew and the Gospel of Luke.
III. PLAN AND CONTENTS OF THE FIRST GOSPEL
The author did not wish to compose a biography of Christ, but to
demonstrate, by recording His words and the deeds of His life,
that He was the Messias, the Head and Founder of the Kingdom of
God, and the promulgator of its laws. One can scarcely fail to
recognize that, except in a few parts (e. g. the Childhood and
the Passion), the arrangement of events and of discourses is
artificial. Matthew usually combines facts and precepts of a
like nature. Whatever the reason, he favours groups of three
(thirty-eight of which may be counted)--three divisions in the
genealogy of Jesus (i, 17), three temptations (iv, 1-11), three
examples of justice (vi, 1-18), three cures (viii, 1-15), three
parables of the seed (xiii, 1-32), three denials of Peter (xxvi,
69-75), etc.; of five (these are less numerous)--five long
discourses (v-vii, 27; x; xiii, 1-52; xviii; xxiv-xxv), ending
with the same formula (Kai egeneto, ote etelesen ho Iesous),
five examples of the fulfilment of the law (v, 21-48), etc.; and
of seven--seven parables (xiii), seven maledictions (xxiii),
seven brethren (xxii, 25), etc. The First Gospel can be very
naturally divided as follows:-
A. INTRODUCTION (1-2)
The genealogy of Jesus, the prediction of His Birth, the Magi,
the Flight into Egypt, the Massacre of the Innocents, the return
to Nazareth, and the life there.
B. THE PUBLIC MINISTRY OF JESUS (3-25)
This may be divided into three parts, according to the place
where He exercised it.
(1) In Galilee (3-18)
(a) Preparation for the public ministry of Jesus (3:1 to 4:11)
John the Baptist, the Baptism of Jesus, the Temptation, the
return to Galilee.
(b) The preaching of the Kingdom of God (4:17 to 18:35)
(1) the preparation of the Kingdom by the preaching of penance,
the call of the disciples, and numerous cures (iv, 17-25), the
promulgation of the code of the Kingdom of God in the Sermon on
the Mount (v, I-vii, 29);
(2) the propagation of the Kingdom in Galilee (viii, I-xviii,
35). He groups together:
+ the deeds by which Jesus established that He was the Messias
and the King of the Kingdom: various cures, the calming of the
tempest, missionary journeys through the land, the calling of
the Twelve Apostles, the principles that should guide them in
their missionary travels (viii, 1-x, 42);
+ various teachings of Jesus called forth by circumstances:
John's message and the Lord's answer, Christ's confutation of
the false charges of the Pharisees, the departure and return
of the unclean spirit (xi, 1-xii, 50);
+ finally, the parables of the Kingdom, of which Jesus makes
known and explains the end (xiii, 3-52).
(3) Matthew then relates the different events that terminate the
preaching in Galilee: Christ's visit to Nazareth (xiii, 53-58),
the multiplication of the loaves, the walking on the lake,
discussions with the Pharisees concerning legal purifications,
the confession of Peter at Caesarea, the Transfiguration of
Jesus, prophecy regarding the Passion and Resurrection, and
teachings on scandal, fraternal correction, and the forgiveness
of injuries (xiv, 1-xviii, 35).
(2) Outside Galilee or the way to Jerusalem (19-20)
Jesus leaves Galilee and goes beyond the Jordan; He discusses
divorce with the Pharisees; answers the rich young man, and
teaches self-denial and the danger of wealth; explains by the
parable of the labourers how the elect will be called; replies
to the indiscreet question of the mother of the sons of Zebedee,
and cures two blind men of Jericho.
(3) In Jerusalem (21-25)
Jesus makes a triumphal entry into Jerusalem; He curses the
barren fig tree and enters into a dispute with the chief priests
and the Pharisees who ask Him by what authority He has banished
the sellers from the Temple, and answers them by the parables of
the two sons, the murderous husbandmen, and the marriage of the
king's son. New questions are put to Jesus concerning the
tribute, the resurrection of the dead, and the greatest
commandment. Jesus anathematizes the scribes and Pharisees and
foretells the events that will precede and accompany the fall of
Jerusalem and the end of the world.
C. THE PASSION AND THE RESURRECTION OF JESUS (26-28)
(1) The Passion (26-27)
Events are now hurrying to a close. The Sanhedrin plots for the
death of Jesus, a woman anoints the feet of the Lord, and Judas
betrays his Master. Jesus eats the pasch with His disciples and
institutes the Eucharist. In the Garden of Olives, He enters
upon His agony and offers up the sacrifice of His life. He is
arrested and brought before the Sanhedrin. Peter denies Christ;
Judas hangs himself. Jesus is condemned to death by Pilate and
crucified; He is buried, and a guard is placed at the Sepulchre
(xxvi, 1-xxvii, 66).
(2) The Resurrection (28)
Jesus rises the third day and appears first to the holy women at
Jerusalem, then in Galilee to His disciples, whom He sends forth
to propagate throughout the world the Kingdom of God.
IV. OBJECT AND DOCTRINAL TEACHING OF THE FIRST GOSPEL
Immediately after the descent of the Holy Ghost upon the
Apostles, Peter preached that Jesus, crucified and risen, was
the Messias, the Saviour of the World, and proved this assertion
by relating the life, death, and resurrection of the Lord. This
was the first Apostolic teaching, and was repeated by the other
preachers of the Gospel, of whom tradition tells us that Matthew
was one. This Evangelist proclaimed the Gospel to the Hebrews
and, before his departure from Jerusalem, wrote in his mother
tongue the Gospel that he had preached. Hence the aim of the
Evangelist was primarily apologetic. He wished to demonstrate to
his readers, whether these were converts or still unbelieving
Jews, that in Jesus the ancient prophecies had been realized in
their entirety. This thesis includes three principal ideas:
+ Jesus is the Messias, and the kingdom He inaugurates is the
Messianic kingdom foretold by the prophets;
+ because of their sins, the Jews, as a nation, shall have no
part in this kingdom
+ the Gospel will be announced to all nations, and all are
called to salvation.
A. JESUS AS MESSIAS
St. Matthew has shown that in Jesus all the ancient prophesies
on the Messias were fulfilled. He was the Emmanuel, born of a
Virgin Mother (i, 22, 23), announced by Isaias (vii, 14); He was
born at Bethlehem (ii, 6), as had been predicted by Micheas (v,
2), He went to Egypt and was recalled thence (ii, 15) as
foretold by Osee (xi, 1). According to the prediction of Isaias
(xl, 3), He was heralded by a precursor, John the Baptist (iii,
1 sqq.); He cured all the sick (viii, 16 so.), that the Prophecy
of Isaias (liii, 4) might be fulfilled; and in all His actions
He was indeed the same of whom this prophet had spoken (xiii,
1). His teaching in parables (xiii, 3) was conformable to what
Isaias had said (vi, 9). Finally, He suffered, and the entire
drama of His Passion and Death was a fulfilment of the
prophecies of Scripture (Isaias, liii, 3-12; Ps. xxi, 13-22).
Jesus proclaimed Himself the Messias by His approbation of
Peter's confession (xvi, 16, 17) and by His answer to the high
priest (xxvi, 63, 64). St. Matthew also endeavours to show that
the Kingdom inaugurated by Jesus Christ is the Messianic
Kingdom. From the beginning of His public life, Jesus proclaims
that the Kingdom of Heaven is at hand (iv, 17); in the Sermon on
the Mount He promulgates the charter of this kingdom, and in
parables He speaks of its nature and conditions. In His answer
to the envoys of John the Baptist Jesus specifically declares
that the Messianic Kingdom, foretold by the Prophets, has come
to pass, and He describes its characteristics: "The blind see,
and the lame walk, the lepers are cleansed, the deaf hear, the
dead rise again, the poor have the gospel preached to them." It
was in these terms, that Isaias had described the future kingdom
(xxxv, 5, 6; loci, 1). St. Matthew records a very formal
expression of the Lord concerning the coming of the Kingdom:
"But if I by the Spirit of God cast out devils, then is the
kingdom of God come upon you" (xii, 28). Moreover, Jesus could
call Himself the Messias only inasmuch as the Kingdom of God had
come.
B. EXCLUSION OF JEWS FROM MESSIANIC KINGDOM
The Jews as a nation were rejected because of their sins, and
were to have no part in the Kingdom of Heaven. This rejection
had been several times predicted by the prophets, and St.
Matthew shows that it was because of its incredulity that Israel
was excluded from the Kingdom, he dwells on all the events in
which the increasing obduracy of the Jewish nation is
conspicuous, manifested first in the princes and then in the
hatred of the people who beseech Pilate to put Jesus to death.
Thus the Jewish nation itself was accountable for its exclusion
from the Messianic kingdom.
C. UNIVERSAL PROCLAMATION OF THE GOSPEL
That the pagans were called to salvation instead of the Jews,
Jesus declared explicitly to the unbelieving Israelites:
"Therefore I say to you that the kingdom of God shall be taken
from you, and shall be given to a nation yielding the fruits
thereof" (xxi, 43); "He that soweth the good seed, is the Son of
man. And the field is the world" (xiii, 37-38). "And this gospel
of the kingdom shall be preached in the whole world for a
testimony to all nations, and then shall the consummation come"
(xxiv, 14). Finally, appearing to His Apostles in Galilee, Jesus
gives them this supreme command: "All power is given to me in
heaven and in earth. Going therefore, teach ye all nations"
(xxviii 18, 19). These last words of Christ are the summary of
the First Gospel. Efforts have been made to maintain that these
words of Jesus, commanding that all nations be evangelized, were
not authentic, but in a subsequent paragraph we shall prove that
all the Lord's sayings, recorded in the First Gospel, proceed
from the teaching of Jesus.
V. DESTINATION OF THE GOSPEL
The ecclesiastical writers Papias, St. Irenaeus, Origen,
Eusebius, and St. Jerome, whose testimony has been given above
(II, A), agree in declaring that St. Matthew wrote his Gospel
for the Jews. Everything in this Gospel proves, that the writer
addresses himself to Jewish readers. He does not explain Jewish
customs and usages to them, as do the other Evangelists for
their Greek and Latin readers, and he assumes that they are
acquainted with Palestine, since, unlike St. Luke he mentions
places without giving any indication of their topographical
position. It is true that the Hebrew words, Emmanuel, Golgotha,
Eloi, are translated, but it is likely that these translations
were inserted when the Aramaic text was reproduced in Greek. St.
Matthew chronicles those discourses of Christ that would
interest the Jews and leave a favourable impression upon them.
The law is not to be destroyed, but fulfilled (v, 17). He
emphasizes more strongly than either St. Mark or St. Luke the
false interpretations of the law given by the scribes and
Pharisees, the hypocrisy and even the vices of the latter, all
of which could be of interest to Jewish readers only. According
to certain critics, St. Irenaeus (Fragment xxix) said that
Matthew wrote to convert the Jews by proving to them that Christ
was the Son of David. This interpretation is badly founded.
Moreover, Origen (In Matt., i) categorically asserts that this
Gospel was published for Jews converted to the Faith. Eusebius
(Hist. eccl. III, xxiv) is also explicit on this point, and St.
Jerome, summarizing tradition, teaches us that St. Matthew
published his Gospel in Judea and in the Hebrew language,
principally for those among the Jews who believed in Jesus, and
did not observe even the shadow of the Law, the truth of the
Gospel having replaced it (In Matt. Prol.). Subsequent
ecclesiastical writers and Catholic exegetes have taught that
St. Matthew wrote for the converted Jews. "However," says Zahn
(Introd. to the New Testament, II, 562), "the apologetical and
polemical character of the book, as well as the choice of
language, make it extremely probable that Matthew wished his
book to be read primarily by the Jews who were not yet
Christians. It was suited to Jewish Christians who were still
exposed to Jewish influence, and also to Jews who still resisted
the Gospel".
VI. DATE AND PLACE OF COMPOSITION
Ancient ecclesiastical writers are at variance as to the date of
the composition of the First Gospel. Eusebius (in his
Chronicle), Theophylact, and Euthymius Zigabenus are of opinion
that the Gospel of Matthew was written eight years, and
Nicephorus Callistus fifteen years, after Christ's Ascension--i.
e. about A.D. 38-45. According to Eusebius, Matthew wrote his
Gospel in Hebrew when he left Palestine. Now, following a
certain tradition (admittedly not too reliable), the Apostles
separated twelve years after the Ascension, hence the Gospel
would have been written about the year 40-42, but following
Eusebius (Hist. eccl., III, v, 2), it is possible to fix the
definitive departure of the Apostles about the year 60, in which
event the writing of the Gospel would have taken place about the
year 60-68. St Irenaeus is somewhat more exact concerning the
date of the First Gospel, as he says: "Matthew produced his
Gospel when Peter and Paul were evangelizing and founding the
Church of Rome, consequently about the years 64-67." However,
this text presents difficulties of interpretation which render
its meaning uncertain and prevent us from deducing any positive
conclusion.
In our day opinion is rather divided. Catholic critics, in
general, favour the years 40-45, although some (e. g. Patrizi)
go back to 36-39 or (e. g. Aberle) to 37. Belser assigns 41-42;
Conely, 40-50; Schafer, 50-51; Hug, Reuschl, Schanz, and Rose,
60-67. This last opinion is founded on the combined testimonies
of St. Irenaeus and Eusebius, and on the remark inserted
parenthetically in the discourse of Jesus in chapter xxiv, 15:
"When therefore you shall see the abomination of desolation,
which was spoken of by Daniel the prophet, standing in the holy
place": here the author interrupts the sentence and invites the
reader to take heed of what follows, viz.: "Then they that are
in Judea, let them flee to the mountains." As there would have
been no occasion for a like warning had the destruction of
Jerusalem already taken place, Matthew must have written his
Gospel before the year 70 (about 65-70 according to Batiffol).
Protestant and Liberalistic critics also are greatly at variance
as regards the time of the composition of the First Gospel. Zahn
sets the date about 61-66, and Godet about 60-66; Keim, Meyer,
Holtzmann (in his earlier writings), Beyschlag, and Maclean,
before 70, Bartiet about 68-69; W. Allen and Plummer, about
65-75; Hilgenfeld and Holtzmann (in his later writings), soon
after 70; B. Weiss and Harnack, about 70-75; Renan, later than
85, Reville, between 69 and 96, Juelicher, in 81-96, Montefiore,
about 90-100, Volkmar, in 110; Baur, about 130-34. The following
are some of the arguments advanced to prove that the First
Gospel was written several years after the Fall of Jerusalem.
When Jesus prophesies to His Apostles that they will be
delivered up to the councils, scourged in the synagogues,
brought before governors and kings for His sake; that they will
give testimony of Him, will for Him be hated and driven from
city to city (x, 17-23) and when He commissions them to teach
all nations and make them His disciples, His words intimate, it
is claimed, the lapse of many years, the establishment of the
Christian Church in distant parts, and its cruel persecution by
the Jews and even by Roman emperors and governors. Moreover,
certain sayings of the Lord--such as: "Thou art Peter; and upon
this rock I will build my church" (xi, 18), "If he [thy brother]
will not hear them: tell the Church" (xviii, 10)--carry us to a
time when the Christian Church was already constituted, a time
that could not have been much earlier than the year 100. The
fact is, that what was predicted by Our Lord, when He announced
future events and established the charter and foundations of His
Church, is converted into reality and made coexistent with the
writing of the First Gospel. Hence, to give these arguments a
probatory value it would be necessary either to deny Christ's
knowledge of the future or to maintain that the teachings
embodied in the First Gospel were not authentic.
VII. HISTORIC VALUE OF THE FIRST GOSPEL
(1) OF THE NARRATIVES
Apart from the narratives of the Childhood of Jesus, the cure of
the two blind men, the tribute money, and a few incidents
connected with the Passion and Resurrection, all the others
recorded by St. Matthew are found in both the other Synoptists,
with one exception (viii, 5-13) which occurs only in St. Luke.
Critics agree m declaring that, regarded as a whole, the events
of the life of Jesus recorded in the Synoptic Gospels are
historic. For us, these facts are historic even in detail, our
criterion of truth being the same for the aggregate and the
details. The Gospel of St. Mark is acknowledged to be of great
historic value because it reproduces the preaching of St. Peter.
But, for almost all the events of the Gospel, the information
given by St. Mark is found in St. Matthew, while such as are
peculiar to the latter are of the same nature as events recorded
by St. Mark, and resemble them so closely that it is hard to
understand why they should not be historic, since they also are
derived from the primitive catechesis. It may be further
observed that the narratives of St. Matthew are never
contradictory to the events made known to us by profane
documents, and that they give a very accurate account of the
moral and religious ideas, the manners and customs of the Jewish
people of that time. In his recent work, "The Synoptic Gospels"
(London, 1909), Montefiore, a Jewish critic, does full justice
to St. Matthew on these different points. Finally all the
objections that could possibly have been raised against their
veracity vanish, if we but keep in mind the standpoint of the
author, and what he wished to demonstrate. The comments we are
about to make concerning the Lord's utterances are also
applicable to the Gospel narratives. For a demonstration of the
historic value of the narratives of the Holy Childhood, we
recommend Father Durand's scholarly work, "L'enfance de
Jesus-Christ d'apres les evangiles canoniques" (Paris, 1907).
(2) OF THE DISCOURSES
The greater part of Christ's short sayings are found in the
three Synoptic Gospels and consequently spring from the early
catechesis. His long discourses, recorded by St. Matthew and St.
Luke, also formed part of an authentic catechesis, and critics
in general are agreed in acknowledging their historic value.
There are, however some who maintain that the Evangelist
modified his documents to adapt them to the faith professed in
Christian communities at the time when he wrote his Gospel. They
also claim that, even prior to the composition of the Gospels,
Christian faith had altered Apostolic reminiscences. Let us
first of all observe that these objections would have no weight
whatever, unless we were to concede that the First Gospel was
not written by St. Matthew. And even assuming the same point of
view as our adversaries, who think that our Synoptic Gospels
depend upon anterior sources, we maintain that these changes,
whether attributable to the Evangelists or to their sources (i.
e. the faith of the early Christians), could not have been
effected.
The alterations claimed to have been introduced into Christ's
teachings could not have been made by the Evangelists
themselves. We know that the latter selected their
subject-matter and disposed of it each in his own way, and with
a special end in view, but this matter was the same for all
three, at least for the whole contents of the pericopes, and was
taken from the original catechesis, which was already
sufficiently well established not to admit of the introduction
into it of new ideas and unknown facts. Again, all the doctrines
which are claimed to be foreign to the teachings of Jesus are
found in the three Synoptists, and are so much a part of the
very framework of each Gospel that their removal would mean the
destruction of the order of the narrative. Under these
conditions, that there might be a substantial change in the
doctrines taught by Christ, it would be necessary to suppose a
previous understanding among the three Evangelists, which seems
to us impossible, as Matthew and Luke at least appear to have
worked independently of each other and it is in their Gospels
that Christ's longest discourses are found. These doctrines,
which were already embodied in the sources used by the three
Synoptists, could not have resulted from the deliberations and
opinions of the earliest Christians. First of all, between the
death of Christ and the initial drawing up of the oral
catechesis, there was not sufficient time for originating, and
subsequently enjoining upon the Christian conscience, ideas
diametrically opposed to those said to have been exclusively
taught by Jesus Christ. For example, let us take the doctrines
claimed, above all others, to have been altered by the belief of
the first Christians, namely that Jesus Christ had called all
nations to salvation. It is said that the Lord restricted His
mission to Israel, and that all those texts wherein He teaches
that the Gospel should be preached throughout the entire world
originated with the early Christians and especially with Paul.
Now, in the first place, these universalist doctrines could not
have sprung up among the Apostles. They and the primitive
Christians were Jews of poorly developed intelligence, of very
narrow outlook, and were moreover imbued with particularist
ideas. From the Gospels and Acts it is easy to see that these
men were totally unacquainted with universalist ideas, which had
to be urged upon them, and which, even then, they were slow to
accept. Moreover, how could this first Christian generation,
who, we are told, believed that Christ's Second Coming was close
at hand, have originated these passages proclaiming that before
this event took place the Gospel should be preached to all
nations? These doctrines do not emanate from St. Paul and his
disciples. Long before St. Paul could have exercised any
influence whatever over the Christian conscience, the
Evangelical sources containing these precepts had already been
composed. The Apostle of the Gentiles was the special propagator
of these doctrines, but he was not their creator. Enlightened by
the Holy Spirit, he understood that the ancient prophecies had
been realized in the Person of Jesus and that the doctrines
taught by Christ were identical with those revealed by the
Scriptures.
Finally, by considering as a whole the ideas constituting the
basis of the earliest Christian writings, we ascertain that
these doctrines, taught by the prophets, and accentuated by the
life and words of Christ, form the framework of the Gospels and
the basis of Pauline preaching. They are, as it were, a kind of
fasces which it would be impossible to unbind, and into which no
new idea could be inserted without destroying its strength and
unity. In the prophecies, the Gospels the Pauline Epistles, and
the first Christian writings an intimate correlation joins all
together, Jesus Christ Himself being the centre and the common
bond. What one has said of Him, the others reiterate, and never
do we hear an isolated or a discordant voice. If Jesus taught
doctrines contrary or foreign to those which the Evangelists
placed upon His lips, then He becomes an inexplicable
phenomenon, because, in the matter of ideas, He is in
contradiction to the society in which He moved, and must be
ranked with the least intelligent sections among the Jewish
people. We are justified, therefore, in concluding that the
discourses of Christ, recorded in the First Gospel and
reproducing the Apostolic catechesis, are authentic. We my
however, again observe that, his aim being chiefly apologetic,
Matthew selected and presented the events of Christ's life and
also these discourses in a way that would lead up to the
conclusive proof which he wished to give of the Messiahship of
Jesus. Still the Evangelist neither substantially altered the
original catechesis nor invented doctrines foreign to the
teaching of Jesus. His action bore upon details or form, but not
upon the basis of words and deeds.
APPENDIX: DECISIONS OF THE BIBLICAL COMMISSION
The following answers have been given by the Biblical Commission
(q.v.) to inquiries about the Gospel of St. Matthew: In view of
the universal and constant agreement of the Church, as shown by
the testimony of the Fathers, the inscription of Gospel codices,
most ancient versions of the Sacred Books and lists handed down
by the Holy Fathers, ecclesiastical writers, popes and councils,
and finally by liturgical usage in the Eastern and Western
Church, it may and should be held that Matthew, an Apostle of
Christ, is really the author of the Gospel that goes by his
name. The belief that Matthew preceded the other Evangelists in
writing, and that the first Gospel was written in the native
language of the Jews then in Palestine, is to be considered as
based on Tradition.
The preparation of this original text was not deferred until
after the destruction of Jerusalem, so that the prophecies it
contains about this might be written after the event; nor is the
alleged uncertain and much disputed testimony of Irenaeus
convincing enough to do away with the opinion most conformed to
Tradition, that their preparation was finished even before the
coming of Paul to Rome. The opinion of certain Modernists is
untenable, viz., that Matthew did not in a proper and strict
sense compose the Gospel, as it has come down to us, but only a
collection of some words and sayings of Christ, which, according
to them, another anonymous author used as sources.
The fact that the Fathers and all ecclesiastical writers, and
even the Church itself from the very beginning, have used as
canonical the Greek text of the Gospel known as St. Matthew's,
not even excepting those who have expressly handed down that the
Apostle Matthew wrote in his native tongue, proves for certain
that this very Greek Gospel is identical in substance with the
Gospel written by the same Apostle in his native language.
Although the author of the first Gospel has the dogmatic and
apologetic purpose of proving to the Jews that Jesus is the
Messias foretold by the prophets and born of the house of David,
and although he is not always chronological in arranging the
facts or sayings which he records, his narration is not to be
regarded as lacking truth. Nor can it be said that his accounts
of the deeds and utterances of Christ have been altered and
adapted by the influence of the prophecies of the Old Testament
and the conditions of the growing Church, and that they do not
therefore conform to historical truth. Notably unfounded are the
opinions of those who cast doubt on the historical value of the
first two chapters, treating of the genealogy and infancy of
Christ, or on certain passages of much weight for certain
dogmas, such as those which concern the primacy of Peter (xvi,
17-19), the form of baptism given to the Apostles with their
universal missions (xxviii, 19-20), the Apostles' profession of
faith in Christ (xiv, 33), and others of this character
specially emphasized by Matthew.
E. JACQUIER
Sir Tobie Matthew
Sir Tobie Matthew
English priest, born at Salisbury, 3 October, 1577, died at
Ghent, 13 October, 1655. He was the son of Dr. Tobie Matthew,
then Dean of Christ Church, Oxford, afterwards Anglican Bishop
of Durham, and finally Archbishop of York, and Frances, daughter
of William Barlow, Anglican Bishop of Chichester. Tobie Matthew
matriculated from Christ Church, Oxford, 13 March, 1589-90, and
became M.A. 5 July, 1597. He seems to have been harshly treated
by his parents, who were angered at his youthful extravagance.
On 15 May, 1599, he was admitted at Gray's Inn, where he began
his close intimacy with Sir Francis Bacon, and two years later
became M.P. for Newport, Cornwall. During this period of his
life he frequented the dissolute court of Elizabeth. On the
accession of James I he sat in Parliament for St. Alban's, and
joined the new court, receiving a large grant from the Crown
which amply provided for his future. Having always desired to
travel, he left England in November, 1604, visiting France on
his way to Florence, though he had promised his father he would
not go to Italy. At Florence he came into the society of several
Catholics and ended by being received into the Church. A new
persecution was raging in England, but he determined to return.
He was imprisoned in the Fleet for six months, and every effort
was made to shake his resolution. Finally he was allowed to
leave England, and he travelled in Flanders and Spain. In 1614
he studied for the priesthood at Rome and was ordained by
Cardinal Bellarmine (20 May). The king allowed him to return to
England in 1617, and he stayed for a time with Bacon whose
essays he translated into Italian. From 1619 to 1622 he was
again exiled, but on his return was favourably received by the
king, and acted as an agent at court to promote the marriage of
Prince Charles with the Spanish Infanta. In the same cause James
sent him to Madrid and on his return knighted him, 20 Oct.,
1623. During the reign of Charles I he remained in high favour
at court where he laboured indefatigably for the Catholic cause.
When the Civil War broke out in 1640 he, now an old man, took
refuge with the English Jesuits at their house at Ghent, where
he died. He was always an ardent supporter of the Jesuits. and.
though it has long been denied that he was ever himself a
Jesuit, papers recently discovered at Oulton Abbey show strong
reason for supposing that he was in fact a member of the
Society. Besides the Italian version of Bacon's "Essays", he
translated St. Augustine's "Confessions" (1620), the Life of St.
Teresa written by herself (1623), and Father Arias's "Treatise
of Patience" (1650). His original works were: "A Relation of the
death of Troilo Severe, Baron of Rome" (1620); "A Missive of
Consolation sent from Flanders to the Catholics of England"
(1647): "A True Historical Relation of the Conversion of Sir
Tobie Matthew to the Holie Catholic Faith" (first published in
1904), some manuscript works (see Gillow, " Bibl. Dict. Eng.
Cath.", IV, 541-42). His letters were edited by Dr. John Donne
in 1660.
EDWIN BURTON
Matthew of Cracow
Matthew of Cracow
Renowned scholar and preacher of the fourteenth century, b. at
Cracow about 1335, d. at Pisa, 5 March, 1410. The view, once
generally held, that he was descended from the Pomeranian noble
family of Crakow, is now entirely discredited (cf. Sommererlad,
"Matthaeus von Krakow", 1891). His father was probably a notary
in Cracow. Entering the University of Prague, Matthew graduated
bachelor of arts in 1355 and master in 1357, and later filled
for several terms the office of dean in the same faculty. In
1387 we first find documentary reference to him as professor of
theology, and one manuscript speaks of him as "city preacher of
Prague". About 1382 he headed an embassy from his university to
Urban VI, before whom he delivered a dissertation in favour of
reform. Accepting an invitation from the University of
Heidelberg, he joined its professorial staff in 1395, and a year
later was appointed rector. In 1395 he was named councillor to
Ruprecht II, and the raising of Ruprecht III to the dignity of
King of Rome in 1400 marks the beginning of Matthew's career as
a statesman. Frequently employed by the king both at court and
on embassies, he appeared at Rome in 1403 to solicit Boniface
IX's confirmation of Reprechet's claims. On the elevation of
Innocent VII to the papal throne in 1404, Matthew greeted him on
behalf of Ruprecht. During the same year Matthew was appointed
Bishop of Worms, but, beyond his settling of the dispute between
the people and clergy of that city, we know little of his
episcopal activity.
That he continued to reside in Heidelberg is very probable, and
also that he continued to act as professor. Gregory XII wished
to name him Cardinal Priest of S. Cyriaci in Thermis, but
Matthew declined the honour. As ambassador of Ruprecht to the
Council of Pisa, he displayed the greatest zeal on behalf of
Gregory XII, whom he regarded as the legitimate occupant of the
papal throne. He was a very prolific theological writer. Apart
from Biblical commentaries, sermons, and works on current
topics, the most important of his writings are: "De consolatione
theologiae"; "De modo confitendi"; "De puritate conscientiae";
"De corpore Christi"; "De celebratione Missae". That he wrote
"De arte moriendi"--to be distinguished from a similar work by
Cardinal Capran--cannot be maintained with certainty, and recent
investigation has shown beyond doubt that the work "De
squaloribus curiae Romanae" is not from his hands (Scheuffgen,
"Beitraege zur Gesch. Des grossen Schismas", 1889, p. 91).
In addition to the works already mentioned, consult SOMMERFELDT,
Zu M.' kanzelredner. Schriften in Deutsche Zeitschr. fur
Kirchengesch., XXII (Tubingen, 1901), 465-84; XXV (1904),
604-25; LOFFEN, Staat u. Kirche in der Pfalz am Ausgange des M.
A. (1907), 45 sqq; BLIEMETZRIEDER, Matthaus v. K., der Verfasser
der Postillen in Studien u. Mitteil. aus dem Benediktiner- u.
dem Cisterzienerorden, XXV (1904), 544-56; FINKE in Kirchenlex,
s.v. Matthaus von Krakau.
THOMAS KENNEDY
St. Matthias
St. Matthias
Apostle.
The Greek Matthias (or, in some manuscripts, Maththias), is a
name derived from Mattathias, Heb. Mattithiah, signifying "gift
of Yahweh." Matthias was one of the seventy disciples of Jesus,
and had been with Him from His baptism by John to the Ascension
(Acts i, 21, 22). It is related (Acts, i, 15-26) that in the
days following the Ascension, Peter proposed to the assembled
brethren, who numbered one hundred and twenty, that they choose
one to fill the place of the traitor Judas in the Apostolate.
Two disciples, Joseph, called Barsabas, and Matthias were
selected, and lots were drawn, with the result in favour of
Matthias, who thus became associated with the eleven Apostles.
Zeller has declared this narrative unhistoric, on the plea that
the Apostles were in Galilee after the death of Jesus. As a
matter of fact they did return to Galilee, but the Acts of the
Apostles clearly state that about the feast of Pentecost they
went back to Jerusalem.
All further information concerning the life and death of
Matthias is vague and contradictory. According to Nicephorus
(Hist. eccl., 2, 40), he first preached the Gospel in Judea,
then in Ethiopia (that is to say, Colchis) and was crucified.
The Synopsis of Dorotheus contains this tradition: Matthias in
interiore AEthiopia, ubi Hyssus maris portus et Phasis fluvius
est, hominibus barbaris et carnivoris praedicavit Evangelium.
Mortuus est autem in Sebastopoli, ibique prope templum Solis
sepultus (Matthias preached the Gospel to barbarians and
cannibals in the interior of Ethiopia, at the harbour of the sea
of Hyssus, at the mouth of the river Phasis. He died at
Sebastopolis, and was buried there, near the Temple of the Sun).
Still another tradition maintains that Matthias was stoned at
Jerusalem by the Jews, and then beheaded (cf. Tillemont,
"Memoires pour servir `a l'histoire eccl. des six premiers
siecles", I, 406-7). It is said that St. Helena brought the
relics of St. Matthias to Rome, and that a portion of them was
at Trier. Bollandus (Acta SS., May, III) doubts if the relics
that are in Rome are not rather those of the St. Matthias who
was Bishop of Jerusalem about the year 120, and whose history
would seem to have been confounded with that of the Apostle. The
Latin Church celebrates the feast of St. Matthias on 24 February
and the Greek Church on 9 August.
Clement of Alexandria (Strom., III, 4) records a sentence that
the Nicolaitans ascribe to Matthias: "we must combat our flesh,
set no value upon it, and concede to it nothing that can flatter
it, but rather increase the growth of our soul by faith and
knowledge". This teaching was probably found in the Gospel of
Matthias which was mentioned by Origen (Hom. i in Lucam); by
Eusebius (Hist. eccl., III, 25), who attributes it to heretics;
by St. Jerome (Praef. in Matth.), and in the Decree of Gelasius
(VI, 8) which declares it apocryphal. It is at the end of the
list of the Codex Barrocciamus (206). This Gospel is probably
the document whence Clement of Alexandria quoted several
passages, saying that they were borrowed from the traditions of
Matthias, Paradoseis, the testimony of which he claimed to have
been invoked by the heretics Valentinus, Marcion, and Basilides
(Strom., VII, 17). According to the Philosophoumena, VII, 20,
Basilides quoted apocryphal discourses, which he attributed to
Matthias. These three writings: the gospel, the Traditions, and
the Apocryphal Discourses were identified by Zahn (Gesch. des N.
T. Kanon, II, 751), but Harnack (Chron. der altchrist.
Litteratur, 597) denies this identification. Tischendorf ("Acta
apostolorum apocrypha", Leipzig, l85I) published after Thilo,
1846, "Acta Andreae et Matthiae in urbe anthropophagarum ",
which, according to Lipsius, belonged to the middle of the
second century. This apocrypha relates that Matthias went among
the cannibals and, being cast into prison, was delivered by
Andrew. Needless to say, the entire narrative is without
historical value. Moreover, it should be remembered that, in the
apocryphal writings, Matthew and Matthias have sometimes been
confounded.
E. JACQUIER
Matthias Corvinus
Matthias Corvinus
King of Hungary, son of Janos Hunyady and Elizabeth Szilagyi of
Horogssey, was born at Kolozsvar 23 Feb., 1440; d. at Vienna, 6
April, 1490. In the house of his father he received along with
his brother Ladislaus, a careful education under the supervision
of Gregor Sanocki, who taught him the humanities. Johann Vitez,
Bishop of Grosswardein from 1445, the friend of Matthias's
father when a boy, and himself an enthusiastic patron and
promoter of classical studies, had a decided influence on his
education. The checkered career of his father likewise left its
imprint on the life of Matthias. On political grounds he was
betrothed in 1455 to Elizabeth, the daughter of Count Ulric
Czilley, his father's deadly enemy, with the aim of effecting
the reconciliation of the two families. The early death of
Elizabeth interfered with this plan, and after the death of
Janos Hunyady, Czilley's emnity was directed against the sons.
At the instigation of Czilley and his accomplices, who accused
Ladislaus and Matthias Hunyadi of a conspiracy against King
Ladislaus V, both were arrested, Ladislaus being executed, and
Matthias being taken to Vienna to the court of the king. Later
he followed the king to Prague. After the death of King
Ladislaus at Prague, Matthias settled down at the court of the
Bohemian king, George Podiebrad, who betrothed him to his
daughter Catharine. On 23 Jan., 1458, Matthias was proclaimed
King of Hungary at Buda, his uncle Michael Szilagyi at the same
time being appointed governor for five years. Matthias soon
freed himself, however, from the regency of Szilagyi, and took
the reins of government into his own hands. At the very
beginning of his reign he had to contend with a movement among
discontented Hungarians, who offered the crown to the Emperor
Frederick III, who had assumed the title of King of Hungary. The
quarrel with Frederick lasted till 1462, when an agreement was
made by which, among other things, it was settled that if
Matthias should die without leaving an heir, Frederick would be
authorized to bear the title of King of Hungary as long as he
lived. At the same time, Frederick adopted Matthias as his son,
and pledged himself to deliver up the Hungarian crown which he
had in his possession. The treaty was confirmed by the Hungarian
Reichstag and Matthias was crowned king in 1463. Not long before
he had married Catharine, the daughter of the Bohemian king
Podiebrad, who, however, died at the beginning of 1464.
Relations with the Emperor Frederick again became strained;
political conditions and, in particular, the question of the
Bohemian crown, affected them considerably. The friction between
the Holy See and King Podiebrad led to the deposition of the
latter, and Matthias was now called upon by the pope to take up
arms against the deposed king. In 1468 came the Bohemian
expedition of Matthias, elected king by the Catholics of
Bohemia. The war continued till the death of Podiebrad in 1471,
when the Bohemians, defeating Matthias, chose Wladislaw, son of
Casimir, King of Poland, as king. The years up to 1474 were
marked by indecisive battles with the Bohemian king and with the
Emperor Frederick. An armistice caused a brief cessation of
hostilities, but from 1476 relations with the Emperor Frederick
grew continually more strained. In 1477 Matthias, invading
Austria, besieged Vienna. Peace was effected between Matthias
and Frederick by the intervention of the papal legate in 1477,
but war soon broke out again, and in 1485 Matthias took Vienna.
In the war with the Emperor Frederick, Matthias had in view the
Roman crown. In this connexion he was led not merely by the aim
of securing for Hungary a leading position in the West of
Europe, but also by the design to unite the powers of Europe in
a crusade against the Turks. He was obliged, however, to abandon
this scheme. Equally fruitless was the plan of a crusade against
the Turks; nevertheless he managed to fix a limit to the advance
of the Turks, and to strengthen the supremacy of Hungary over
Bosnia. In 1463 Bosnia fell again into the hands of the Turks.
The victory of Matthias over the Turks in Servia, Bosnia, and
Transylvania resulted in 1483 in a truce with the Sultan
Bajazet. Matthias's relations with the Catholic church were good
till the year 1471; but the second part of his reign was marked
by a series of most serious blunders and acts of violence. In
spite of legal enactments, he gave bishoprics to foreigners, and
rewarded political services with gifts of church property, which
he dealt with as though it were the property of the state. His
relations with the Holy See were at first decidedly cordial, but
later there was danger of a rupture, which was happily avoided.
Under Matthias the humanities made their entry into Hungary. His
library in Buda, the Bibliotheca Corviniana, wins just
admiration even to-day by virtue of the remnants of it scattered
over Europe. During his reign the first printing press in
Hungary was established, that at Buda, the first known
production of which is the "Chronicle of Buda", printed in 1473.
The arts too, found in Matthias a generous Maecenas. Matthias
introduced reforms in the army, in finance, and in the
administration of the courts and the law. The reorganization of
military affairs was based on the principle of a standing army.
With this body, the so-called black troops, he defeated the
Turks and the Hussite troops of Giskra, which were laying waste
Upper Hungary. In financial affairs, a reform in the mode of
taxation was introduced, while his enactments in judicial
affairs earned for him among the people the title of "The Just".
In 1476 he married Beatrice, the daughter of the King of Naples,
but the union was childless. His exertions to secure the throne
for his illegitimate son, Johann Corvinus, were rendered futile
by the opposition of Hungary and the plotting of Beatrice.
Matthias was buried at Szekes-Fehervar (Stuhlweissenburg).
TELEKI, A Hunyadyak kora Magyarorszagon (Pesth, 1852), in
Hungarian; i. e. The Age of the Hunyadys in Hungary, 9 vols.;
CSANKI, Magyarorszag torteneti folrajza a Hunyadyak koraban
(Budapest, 1890), i. e. The Historical Geography of Hungary in
the Age of the Hunyadys, 3 vols. have appeared; FRAKNOI, A
Hunyadyak es Jagellok kora 1440-56 (Budapest, 1896), Hungarian:
i. e. The Age of the Hunyadys and Jagellons; IDEM, Matthias
Corvinus, Konig von Ungarn Freiburg im Br., 1891). For
information as to church conditions in Hungary see the
bibliography of HUNGARY. For Matthias's relations with the Holy
See, see the Latin introduction to Monumenta Vaticana Hungarica;
Mathiae Corvini Hungariae regis epistolae ad Romanos pontifices
datae et ab eis acceptae (Budapest, 1891). For the foreign
politics of Matthias see Monumenta Hungariae Historica, Acta
extera, 1458-90 (Budapest, 1875); Matyas Kiraly levelei Kulugyi
osztaly (Budapest, 1893-95), i. e. Letters of King Matthias,
foreign section, 2 vols.. For information concerning Joannes
Corvinus see SCHONHERR, Corvin Janos (Budapest, 1894);
concerning Queen Beatrice see BERZEVICZY, Beatrix kiralyne
(Budapest, 1908).
A. ALDASY
Matthias of Neuburg
Matthias of Neuburg
Also NEUENBURG (NEOBURGENSIS).
Chronicler, born towards the close of the thirteenth century,
possibly at Neuburg, in Baden; died between 1364 and 1370,
probably at Strasburg, in Alsace. He studied jurisprudence at
Bologna, and later received minor orders, but never became a
priest. In 1327 we meet him as solicitor of the episcopal court
at Basle, and shortly after, while clerk to Bishop Berthold von
Buchecke, holding a similar position in Strasburg. At present he
is generally considered the author of a Latin chronicle from
1243 to 1350, and of its first continuation from 1350 to 1355.
Later, three other writers carried on the work to 1368, 1374,
and 1378 respectively. It is an important contribution to
Alsatian and Habsburg history and for the times in which
Matthias lived; indeed, the part covering the period between
1346 and 1350 is one of the best authorities, not only for the
history of his own country, but that of the entire empire. It
has been attributed to different writers, among them to the
Speyer notary, Jacob of Mainz (cf. Wichert, "Jacob von Mainz",
Koenigsberg, 1881), also to Albert of Strasburg, especially by
earlier editors, while those of later times attribute it to
Matthias of Neuburg. For the voluminous literature on this
controversy see Potthast, "Bibliotheca Kin. Med. Aevi." (Berlin,
1896). Among the editions may be mentioned: "Alberti
Argentinensis Chronici fragmentum", an appendix to Cuspinian's
work "De consulibus Romanorum commentarii" (Basle, 1553),
667-710, very much abridged; G. Studer, "Matthiae Neoburgensis
chronica cum continuatione et vita Berchtoldi"; "Die Chronik des
Matthias von Neuenburg", from the Berne and Strasburg
manuscripts (Berne, 1866); A. Huber, "Mathiae Neuwenburgensis
Cronica, 1273-1350" in Bohmer, "Fontes rerum Germanicarum", IV
(Stuttgart, 1868), 149-276; "Continuationes", 276-297. It has
also been edited from a Vienna and a Vatican manuscript in
"Abhandlungen der Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften", xxxvii-viii
(Gottingen, 1891-2), and translated into German by Grandaur
(Leipzig, 1892).
POTTHAST, Bibliotheca (Berlin, 1896), 780 sq.; WEILAND,
Introduction to the above-mentioned German version, pp. i-xxviii
PATRICIUS SCHLAGER
Maundy Thursday (Holy Thursday)
Maundy Thursday
The feast of Maundy (or Holy) Thursday solemnly commemorates the
institution of the Eucharist and is the oldest of the
observances peculiar to Holy Week. In Rome various accessory
ceremonies were early added to this commemoration, namely the
consecration of the holy oils and the reconciliation of
penitents, ceremonies obviously practical in character and
readily explained by the proximity of the Christian Easter and
the necessity of preparing for it. Holy Thursday could not but
be a day of liturgical reunion since, in the cycle of movable
feasts, it brings around the anniversary of the institution of
the Liturgy. On that day, whilst the preparation of candidates
was being completed, the Church celebrated the Missa chrismalis
of which we have already described the rite (see HOLY OILS) and,
moreover, proceeded to the reconciliation of penitents. In Rome
everything was carried on in daylight, whereas in Africa on HoIy
Thursday the Eucharist was celebrated after the evening meal, in
view of more exact conformity with the circumstances of the Last
Supper. Canon 24 of the Council of Carthage dispenses the
faithful from fast before communion on Holy Thursday, because,
on that day, it was customary take a bath, and the bath and fast
were considered incompatible. St. Augustine, too, speaks of this
custom (Ep. cxviii ad Januarium, n. 7); he even says that as
certain persons did not fast on that day, the oblation was made
twice, morning and evening, and in this way those who did not
observe the fast could partake of the Eucharist after the
morning meal, whilst those who fasted awaited the evening
repast.
Holy Thursday was taken up with a succession of ceremonies of a
joyful character. the baptism of neophytes, the reconciliation
of penitents, the consecration of the holy oils, the washing of
the feet, and commemoration of the Blessed Eucharist, and
because of all these ceremonies, the day received different
names, all of which allude to one or another of solemnities.
Redditio symboli was so called because, before being admitted to
baptism, the catechumens had to recite creed from memory, either
in presence of bishop or his representative.
Pedilavium (washing of the feet), traces of which are found in
the most ancient rites, occurred in many churches on Holy
Thursday, the capitilavium (washing of the head) having taken
place on Palm Sunday (St. Augustine, " Ep. cxviii, cxix", e.
18).
Exomologesis, and reconciliation of penitents: letter of Pope
Innocent I to Decentius of Gubbio, testifies that in Rome it was
customary "quinta feria Pascha" to absolve penitents from their
mortal and venial sins, except in cases of serious illness which
kept them away from church (Labbe, "Concilia" II, col. 1247; St.
Ambrose, "Ep. xxxiii ad Marcellinam"). The penitents heard the
Missa pro reconciliatione paenitentium, and absolution was given
them before the offertory. The "Sacramentary" of Pope Gelasius
contains an Ordo agentibus publicam poenitentiam (Muratori,
"Liturgia romana vetus", I, 548-551).
Olei exorcizati confectio. In the fifth century the custom was
established of consecrating on Holy Thursday all the chrism
necessary for the anointing of the newly baptized. The "Comes
Hieronymi", the Gregorian and Gelasian sacramentaries and the
"Missa ambrosiana" of Pamelius, all agree upon the confection of
the chrism on that day, as does also the "Ordo romanus I".
Anniversarium Eucharistiae. The nocturnal celebration and the
double oblation early became the object of increasing disfavour,
until in 692 the Council of Trullo promulgated a formal
prohibition. The Eucharistic celebration then took place in the
morning, and the bihsop reserved a part of the sacred species
for the communion of the morrow, Missa praesanctificatorum
(Muratori, "Liturg. rom. Vetus", II, 993).
Other observances. On Holy Thursday the ringing of bells ceases,
the altar is stripped after vespers, and the night office is
celebrated under the name of Tenebrae.
H. LECLERCQ
Auguste-Francois Maunoury
Auguste-Franc,ois Maunoury
Hellenist and exegete, b. at Champsecret, Orne, France, 30 Oct.,
1811; d. at Seez, Orne, 17 Nov., 1898. He made brilliant
classical studies at the preparatory seminary at Seez, to which
institution he returned after his theological course, and where
he spent the whole of his long priestly career. Until 1852, he
taught the classics with great success, and then became
professor of rhetoric, a position which he occupied for
twenty-two years. During this period, keeping abreast of the
progress of Hellenistic studies in France and Germany, he
composed, published, and revised those of his works ("Grammaire
de la Langue Grecque"; "Chrestomathie" etc.) which proved him to
be one of the best Greek scholars of his day. Towards 1866,
Maunoury began his work as a commentator of Holy Writ, by
treating some sections of the Gospel in the "Semaine Catholique"
of his native diocese; but it was only after 1875, that he gave
himself fully to the pursuit of Biblical studies. In 1877, he
became canon of the cathedral of Seez; and the following year,
he began to publish his commentaries on all the Epistles of the
New Testament.
These commentaries appeared in five volumes, as follows: (1)
"Com. sur L'Epitre aux Romains" (Paris, 1878); (2) "Com. sur les
deux Epitres aux Corinthiens" (Paris, 1879); (3) "Com. sur les
Epitres aux Galates, aux Ephesiens, aux Phillippiens, aux
Colossiens, et aux Thessaloniciens" (Paris, 1880); (4) "Com. sur
les Epitres `a Timothee, `a Tite, `a Philemon, aux Hebreux"
(Paris, 1882); (5) "Com. sur les Epitres Catholiques de St
Jacques, St. Pierre, St. Jean et St. Jude" (Paris, 1888). In
explaining the Sacred Text he made an excellent use of his great
familiarity with Greek grammar and authors, availed himself
chiefly of the commentaries of St. John Chrysostom and
Theodoret, and always remained an enlightened and safe
theologian. In 1894, he published his "Com. in Psalmos" (2
vols., Paris), a Latin work, written with elegance, almost
exclusively on the basis of the Vulgate and the Septuagint. His
only contribution to apologetics is a volume entitled "Soirees
d'Automne, ou la Religion prouvee aux gens du monde" (Paris,
1887).
HURTER, Nomenclator; Vig., Dict. de la Bible, s.v.
FRANCIS E. GIGOT
St. Maurice
St. Maurice
Leader (primicerius) of the Theban Legion, massacred at Agaunum,
about 287 (286, 297, 302, 303), by order of Maximian Herculius.
Feast, 22 Sept. The legend (Acta SS., VI, Sept., 308, 895)
relates that the legion, composed entirely of Christians, had
been called from Africa to suppress a revolt of the Bagandae in
Gaul. The soldiers were ordered to sacrifice to the gods in
thanksgiving but refused. Every tenth was then killed. Another
order to sacrifice and another refusal caused a second
decimation and then a general massacre. (On the value of the
legend, etc., see Agaunum and Theban Legion.) St. Maurice is
represented as a knight in full armour (sometimes as a Moor),
bearing a standard and a palm; in Italian paintings with a red
cross on his breast, which is the badge of the Sardinian Order
of St. Maurice. Many places in Switzerland, Piedmont, France,
and Germany have chosen him as celestial patron, as have also
the dyers, clothmakers, soldiers, swordsmiths, and others. He is
invoked against gout, cramps, etc.
See CHEVALIER, Bio-Bibl., s.v.; Histor. Jahrbuch, XIII, 782.
FRANCIS MERSHMAN
Maurice
Maurice
(Matricius, Maurikios). Roman Emperor, born in 539; died in
November, 602.
He sprang from an old Roman (Latin) family settled in
Cappadocia, and began his career as a soldier. Under the Emperor
Tiberius II (578-582) he was made commander of a new legion
levied from allied barbarians, with which he did good service
against the Persians. When he returned triumphant to
Constantinople, Tiberius gave him his daughter Constantina in
marriage and appointed him his successor (578). Almost
immediately afterwards (Theophylact, infra, says the next day)
Tiberius died and Maurice succeeded peaceably. At his accession
he found that through the reckless extravagance of his
predecessor the exchequer was empty and the State bankrupt. In
order to remedy this Maurice established the expenses of the
court on a basis of strict economy. He gained a reputation for
parsimony that made him very unpopular and led eventually to his
fall. The twenty years of his reign do not in any way stand out
conspicuously from early Byzantine history. The forces at work
since Justinian, or even Constantine, continued the gradual
decay of the Empire under Maurice, as under Tiberius his
predecessor and Phocas his successor. For the first ten years
the long war with the Persians continued; then a revolution
among the enemy brought a respite and the Roman Emperor was
invoked by Chosroes II to restore him to his throne.
Unfortunately Maurice was not clever enough to draw any profit
for the Empire from this situation. The Avars and Slavs
continued their invasion of the northern provinces. The Slavs
penetrated even to the Peloponnesus. The Lombards ravaged Italy
with impunity. As the Empire could do nothing to protect the
Italians, they invited the Franks to their help (584). This
first invasion of Italy by the Franks began the process that was
to end in the separation of all the West from the old Empire and
the establishment of the rival line of Emperors with Charles the
Great (800). Maurice had to buy of the Avars with a heavy bribe
that further reduced his scanty resources and made economy still
more imperative. The emperor became more and more unpopular. In
599 he could not or would not ransom 12,000 Roman soldiers taken
prisoners by the Avars, and they were all murdered. Further
harassing regulation made for the army with a view to more
economy caused a revolt that be came a revolution. In 602 the
soldiers drove away their officers, made a certain centurion,
Phocas, their leader and marched on Constantinople. Maurice,
finding that he could not organize a resistance, fled across the
Bosporus with his family. He was overtaken at Chalcedon and
murdered with his five sons. Phocas then began his tyrannical
reign (602-610).
In Church history Maurice has some importance through his
relations with Gregory I (590-604). As soon as Gregory was
elected, he wrote to the emperor begging him to annul the
election. The fact has often been quoted as showing Gregory's
acceptance of an imperial right of veto. Later the pope's
organization of resistance against the Lombards was very
displeasing to the emperor, though the government at
Constantinople did nothing to protect Italy. Further trouble was
caused by the tyranny of the imperial exarch at Ravenna,
Romanus. Against this person the pope took the Italians under
his protection. On the other hand the exarch and the emperor
protected the bishops in the North of Italy who still kept up
the schism that began with the Three Chapters quarrel (Pope
Vigilius, 540-555). The assumption of the title of "ecumenical
patriarch" by John IV of Constantinople caused more friction.
All this explains St. Gregory's unfriendly feeling towards
Maurice, and it also helps to explain his ready and friendly
recognition of Phocas which has been alleged by some to be a
blot in the great pope's career. But it is quite probable that
the pope was misinformed and not placed in full possession of
all the circumstances attending the change of government in the
distant East.
ADRIAN FORTESCUE
The Maurists
The Maurists
A congregation of Benedictine monks in France, whose history
extends from 1618 to 1818. It began as an offshoot from the
famous reformed Congregation of St-Vannes. The reform had spread
from Lorraine into France through the influence of Dom Laurent
Benard, Prior of the College de Cluny in Paris, who inaugurated
the reform in his own college. Thence it spread to St-Augustin
de Limoges to Nouaille, to St-Faron de Meaux, to Jumieges, and
to the Blancs-Manteaux in Paris. In 1618 a general chapter of
the Congregation of St-Vannes was held at St-Mansuet de Toul,
whereat it was decided that an independent congregation should
be erected for the reformed houses in France, having its
superior residing within that kingdom. This proposal was
supported by Louis XIII as well as by Cardinals de Retz and
Richelieu; letters patent were granted by the king, and the new
organization was named the Congregation of St-Maur in order to
obviate any rivalry between its component houses. It was
formally approved by Pope Gregory XV on 17 May, 1621, an
approval that was confirmed by Urban VIII six years later. The
reform was welcomed by many of great influence at the Court as
well as by some of the greater monastic houses in France.
Already, under the first president of the congregation, Dom
Martin Tesniere (1618-21), it had included about a dozen great
houses. By 1630 the congregation was divided into three
provinces, and, under Dom Gregoire Tarisse, the first
Superior-General (1630-48), it included over 80 houses. Before
the end of the seventeenth century the number had risen to over
180 monasteries, the congregations being divided into six
provinces: France, Normandy, Brittany, Burgundy, Chezal-Benoit,
and Gascony.
In its earlier years, however, the new congregation was forced,
by Cardinal Richelieu, into an alliance with the Congregation of
Cluny. Richelieu desired an amalgamation of all the Benedictines
in France and even succeeded in bringing into existence, in
1634, an organisation that was called the "Congregation of St.
Benedict" or "of Cluny and St-Maur". This arrangement, however,
was short-lived, and the two congregations were separated by
Urban VIII in 1644. From that date the Congregation of St-Maur
grew steadily both in extent and in influence. Although the
twenty-one superior-generals who succeeded Dom Tarisse steadily
resisted all attempts to establish the congregation beyond the
borders of France, yet its influence was widespread. In several
of its houses schools were conducted for the sons of noble
families, and education was provided gratuitously at St-Martin
de Vertou for those who had become poor. But from the beginning
the Maurists refused to admit houses of nuns into the
congregation, the only exception being the Abbey of Chelles,
where, through Richelieu's influence, a house was established
with six monks to act as confessors to the nuns.
The congregation soon attracted to its ranks many of the most
learned scholars of the period, and though its greatest glory
undoubtedly lies in the seventeenth century, yet, throughout the
eighteenth century also, it continued to produce works whose
solidity and critical value still render them indispensable to
modern students. It is true that the Maurists were not free from
the infiltration of Jansenist ideas, and that the work of some
of its most learned sons was hampered and coloured by the
fashionable heresy and by the efforts of ecclesiastical
superiors to eradicate it. Towards the end of the eighteenth
century, also, there had crept into at least the central house,
St-Germain-des-Pres, a desire for some relaxation of the strict
regularity that had been the mark of the congregation; a desire
that was vigorously opposed by other houses. And, though there
is reason to believe that the laxity was much less serious than
it was represented to be by the rigorists, the dissensions
caused thereby and by the taint of Jansenism had weakened the
congregation and lowered it in public esteem when the crash of
the Revolution came. Yet, right up to the suppression of the
religious orders in 1790, the Maurists worked steadily at their
great undertakings, and some of their publications were, by
general consent, carried on by learned Academies after the
disturbance of the Revolution had passed. In 1817 some of the
survivors of those who had been driven from France in 1790
returned, and an attempt was made to restore the congregation.
The project, however, did not meet with the approbation of the
Holy See and the congregation ceased to exist. The last
surviving member, Dom Brial, died in 1833. In 1837, when Gregory
XVI established the Congregation of France under the governance
of the Abbey of Solesmes, the new congregation was declared the
successor of all the former congregations of French
Benedictines, including that of St-Maur.
Constitution
The early Maurists, like the Congregation of St-Vannes from
which they sprang imitated the constitution of the reformed
Congregation of Monte Cassino. But before many years the need of
new regulations more suitable to France was recognized and Dom
Gregoire Tarisse, the first Superior-General, was entrusted with
the task of drawing them up. Dom Maur Dupont, who was elected
president in 1627, had already made an attempt to accomplish
this; but the Chapter of 1630 appointed a commission, of which
Dom Tarisse was the chief member, to reconstruct the whole work.
The result of their labours was first submitted to Dom Athanase
de Mongin in 1633, then again to Dom Tarisse and three others in
1639, and was finally confirmed by the General Chapter of 1645.
Under these constitutions the president (now styled
"superior-general") and the priors of the commendatory houses of
the congregation were to be elected every three years. They were
eligible for re-election. The superior-general was to reside at
the Abbey of St-Germain-des-Pres and was to be subject only to
the general chapter, which met every three years. With him,
however, were associated two "assistants" and six "visitors",
one for each province. These also resided at
St-Germain-des-Pres, were elected by the general chapter every
three years, and constituted, with the superior-general, the
executive council of the congregation. Besides these officials,
the general chapter was composed of three priors and three
conventuals from each province. Every three years, there were
chosen from its ranks nine "definitors" who appointed the six
visitors, the heads of all the houses that possessed no regular
abbot, the novice-masters, the procurator in curia, the
preachers, professors, etc., of the congregation. Each province
also possessed its provincial chapter, which was presided over
by the visitor, and consisted of the priors and one elected
representative from each house. In each province there were to
be two novitiates. Those who desired to embrace the monastic
state spent one year as "postulants", a second as "novices", and
then, when they had completed the five years' course of
philosophy and theology, spent a "year of recollection" before
they were admitted to the priesthood. The discipline was marked
by a return to the strict rule of St. Benedict. All laboured
with their hands, all abstained from flesh-meat, all embraced
regular poverty; the Divine Office was recited at the canonical
hours with great solemnity, silence was observed for many hours,
and there were regular times for private prayer and meditation.
And this discipline was uniform throughout every house of the
congregation. None were dispensed from its strict observance
save the sick and the infirm. Until the movement towards
relaxation at the end of the eighteenth century, the Maurists
were as renowned for the austerity of their observance as for
the splendour of their intellectual achievements.
To the great body of students, indeed, the Maurists are best
known by their services to ecclesiastical and literary history,
to patrology, to Biblical studies, to diplomatics, to chronology
and to liturgy. The names of DD. Luc d'Achery, Jean Mabillon,
Thierry, Ruinart, Francois Lami, Pierre Coustant, Denys de
Sainte-Marthe, Edmond Martene, Bernard de Montfaucon, Maur
Franc,ois Dantine, Antoine Rivet de la Grange and Martin Bouquet
recall some of the most scholarly works ever produced. To these
and to their confreres we are indebted for critical and still
indispensable editions of the great Latin and Greek Fathers, for
the history of the Benedictine Order and the lives of its
saints, for the "Gallia Christiana" and the Histoire Litteraire
de la France," for the De re Diplomatica" and "L'art de verifier
les dates", for "L'antiquite expliquee et representee" and the
"Paleographia Graeca", for the "Recueil des historiens des
Gaules", the "Veterum scriptorum amplissima collectio", the
"Thesaurus Anecdotorum", the "Spicilegium veterum scriptorum",
the "Museum Italicum", the "Voyage litteraire", and numerous
other works that are the foundation of modern historical and
liturgical studies. For nearly two centuries the great works
that were the result of the foresight and high ideals of Dom
Gregoire Tarisse, were carried on with an industry, a devotion,
and a mastery that aroused the admiration of the learned world.
To this day all who labour to elucidate the past ages and to
understand the growth of Western Christendom, must acknowledge
their indebtedness to the Maurist Congregation.
LESLIE A. ST. L. TOKE
Saint Maurus
St. Maurus
Deacon, son of Equitius, a nobleman of Rome, but claimed also by
Fondi, Gallipoli, Lavello etc.; died 584. Feast, 15 Jan. He is
represented as an abbot with crozier, or with book and censer,
or holding the weights and measures of food and drink given him
by his holy master. He is the patron of charcoalburners,
coppersmiths etc. -- in Belgium of shoemakers -- and is invoked
against gout, hoarseness etc. He was a disciple of St. Benedict,
and his chief support at Subiaco. By St. Gregory the Great (Lib.
Dialog., II) he is described as a model of religious virtues,
especially of obedience. According to the Vita ("Acta SS." II
Jan., 320, and Mabillon "Acta SS. O.S.B.", I, 274) he went to
France in 543 and became the founder and superior of the abbey
at Glanfeuil, later known by his name. This Vita ascribed to a
companion, the monk Faustus of Monte Cassino, has been severely
attacked. Delehaye (loc. cit., 106) calls it a forgery of Abbot
Odo of Glanfeuil in the ninth century but Adlhoch (Stud. u.
Mittheil ., 1903, 3, 1906, l85) makes a zealous defence. On the
Signum S. Mauri, a blessing of the sick with invocation of St.
Maurus given in the Appendix of Rituale Romanum, see "Studien u.
Mittheil." (1882), 165.
FRANCIS MERSMAN
Sylvester Maurus
Sylvester Maurus
Writer on philosophy and theology, b. at Spoleto, 31 Dec., 1619;
d. in Rome, 13 Jan., 1687. He entered the Society of Jesus, 21
April, 1636. After finishing his course of studies and teaching
humanities at the College of Macerata, he held in the same place
the chair of philosophy for three years, and subsequently in
Rome for several years. Then he was promoted to the chair of
theology at the Roman College, and remained in this position for
a considerable number of years. For a period he was also rector
of the latter institution. The mental endowment of Father Maurus
was a happy combination of the speculative and the practical
turn of mind. His doctrine was noted for its soundness and
solidity; at the same time, he constantly put in practice St.
Paul's principle, "not to be more wise than it behoveth to be
wise, but to be wise unto sobriety". Though he was a good
philosopher and theologian, he was a better religious. Those
well acquainted with him are convinced that he never lost his
baptismal innocence. Neither his holiness nor his learning made
him a disagreeable companion or an undesirable friend. It would
be hard to say whether he was more admired or loved by those who
came into contact with him.
The following works of Father Maurus deserve mention: (1)
"Quaestionum philosophicarum Sylvestri Mauri, Soc. Jesu, in
Collegio Romano Philosophiae Professoris ". This work is divided
into four books, and appeared at Rome in 1658. A second edition
was issued in 1670. The latest edition, in three volumes, is
prefaced by a letter of Father Liberatore, and appeared in Le
Mans, 1875-76. (2) "Aristotelis opera quae extant omnia, brevi
paraphrasi, ac litterae perpetuo inhaerente explanatione
illustrata". The work appeared in six volumes, Rome, 1668. The
second volume, containing Aristotle's moral philosophy, was
edited anew in 1696-98. The whole work was published again in
Paris, 1885-87, by Fathers Ehrle, Felchlin, and Beringer; this
edition formed part of the collection entitled "Bibliotheca
Theologiae et Philosophiae scholasticae". (3) "Quaestionum
theologicarum ll. 6", published at Rome, 1676-79; this work
contains all the principal theological treatises. (4) "Opus
theologicum", published in three folio volumes at Rome, 1687,
treats of all the main questions of theology accurately,
concisely, and clearly. The first volume contains some
information concerning the author, and also his picture engraved
by Louis Lenfant.
HURTER, Nomenclator; SOMMERVOGEL, Bibliotheque de la C. de J.,
V, c. 765 sq.
A.J. MAAS
Jean-Siffrein Maury
Jean-Siffrein Maury
Cardinal and statesman, born at Valreas, near Avignon, 26 June,
1746; died at Rome on 10 May, 1817. He made his early studies in
his native town and at Avignon, and by the age of nineteen had
completed his theological course. He then proceeded to Paris and
entered the College de France. Ordained in 1769, he attracted
the attention of a grand-nephew of Fenelon by a eulogy of the
great archbishop, and was appointed Vicar-General of the Diocese
of Lombez in Gascony. In 1772 he was selected by the Academy to
preach the panegyric of St. Louis at the Louvre. His success was
such that the audience interrupted him with loud applause. As a
reward he received a benefice and appointment as royal preacher.
At the General Synod of 1776 he fearlessly exposed the failings
of the court bishops, and in 1784, preaching on St. Vincent of
Paul, he denounced the ingratitude of France towards one of her
worthiest sons. These two sermons have been preserved, the
remainder were burnt by Maury himself -- to save, as he said,
his reputation. Nevertheless, it was owing to them that he
obtained a seat in the Academy (1784). In 1789 he was elected by
the clergy of Peronne to be their deputy in the States-General,
and soon became the acknowledged leader of the Court and Church
party. Mirabeau's name at once occurs whenever the National
Assembly is mentioned. Little is heard of the Abbe Maury, who
was the great tribune's most doughty adversary, and who, though
always defeated on the vote, was not seldom the conqueror in the
debate. In September, 1791 the Assembly was dissolved, and Maury
quitted France for Coblenz, the headquarters of the emigrants.
Here he was received by the king's brothers with extraordinary
attention. Pius VI invited him to reside in Rome, and created
him Archbishop of Nicaea (April, 1792). Soon afterwards he
represented the Holy See at the Diet of Frankfort, where Francis
II was elected emperor. The royal and noble personages assembled
there vied with one another in showing him honour. On his return
he was made cardinal and Archbishop of Montefiascone. When the
Republican armies overran Italy in 1798, Maury fled to Venice
and took a prominent part, as representative of Louis XVIII, in
the conclave at which Pius VII was elected (1800). He did his
best to stop the drawing up of the Concordat, but this did not
prevent him from deserting his royal master and returning to
Paris. Just as he had given his whole energies to the royal
cause, so now he devoted himself entirely to Napoleon. In the
difficult question of the divorce he sided with the emperor, and
it was he who suggested a means of dispensing with the papal
institution of the bishops. He accepted from Napoleon in this
way the See of Paris, though he never styled himself anything
but archbishop-elect. At the fall of the Empire (April 1814) he
was ordered to quit France, and was suspended by the pope.
During the Hundred Days he was confined in the Castle of St.
Angelo. Consalvi obtained his release, and brought about his
reconciliation with Pius VII. His position as cardinal was
restored to him, and he was made a member of the Congregation of
Bishops and Regulars. Maury did not live long to enjoy his
restoration to papal favour. The hardships of his prison life
had destroyed his constitution, and aggravated the malady from
which he had long been suffering. Early in May, 1817, his
strength had so failed that the Last Sacraments were
administered to him. During the night of 10 May his attendants
found him lying dead with his rosary still in his grasp.
Louis XVIII had obstinately refused all reconciliation, and now
forbade his body to be buried in his titular church, Trinita dei
Monti. By order of the pope the remains were laid before the
high altar of the Chiesa Nuova, by the side of Baronius and
Tarugi. When Pius VII heard of his death he said: "He committed
many faults, but who is there that has not done the like? I
myself have committed many grave ones."
Oeuvres Chosies (Paris, 1827); POUJOULAT, Le Cardinal Maury: sa
Vie et ses Oeuvres (Paris, 1855); RICARD, L'Abbe Maury,
1746-1791 (Paris, 1887); IDEM, Correspondance Diplomatique et
Memoires inedits du Cardinal Maury, 1792-1817 (Lille, 1891);
BONET-MAURY, Le Cardinal Maury d'apres sa Correspondance et ses
Memoires inedits (Paris, 1892); SAINTE-BEUVE, Causeries du Lundi
IV (Paris, 1853); SCANNELL in Irish Eccl. Record (1892).
T.B. SCANNELL
Joannes Maxentius
Joannes Maxentius
Joannes Maxentius, leader of the so-called Scythian monks,
appears in history at Constantinople in 519 and 520. These monks
adapted the formula: "One of the Trinity suffered in the flesh"
to exclude Nestorianism and Monophysitism, and they sought to
have the works of Faustus of Riez condemned as being tainted
with Pelagianism. On both these points they met with opposition.
John Maxentius presented an appeal to the papal legates than at
Constantinople (Ep. ad legatos sedis apostolicae, P, G, LXXXVI,
i, 75-86); but it failed to bring forth a favourable decision.
Some of the monks (not Maxentius, however) proceeded, therefore,
to Rome to lay the case before Pope Hormisdas. As the latter
delayed his decision, they addressed themselves to some African
bishops, banished to Sardinia, and St. Fulgentius, answering in
the name of these prelates, warmly endorsed their cause (Fulg.
ep., xvii in P.L., LXV, 451-93). Early in August, 520, the monks
left Rome. Shortly after, 13 August, 520, Hormisdas addressed a
letter to the African bishop, Possessor, then at Constantinople,
in which he severely condemned the conduct of the Scythian
monks, also declaring that the writings of Faustus were not
received among the authoritative works of the Fathers and that
the sound doctrine on grace was contained in the works of St.
Augustine (Hormisdae ep., cxxiv in Thiel, p. 926). Maxentius
assailed this letter in the strongest language as a document
written by heretics and circulated under the pope's name (Ad
epistulam Hormisdae responsio, P, G, LXXXVI, i, 93-112). This is
the last trace of the Scythian monks and their leader in
history. The identification of John Maxentius with the priest
John to whom Fulgentius addressed his "De veritate
praedestinationis etc" and with the priest and archminandrite,
John, to whom the African bishops sent their "Epistula
synodica", rests on a baseless assumption. Maxentius is also the
author of: (1) two dialogues against the Nestorians; (2) twelve
anathematisms against the Nestorians; (3) a treatise against the
Acephali (Monophysites). As to the "Professio de Christo",
printed as a separate work, it is but a part of the "Epistola ad
legatos sedis apostolicae". His works, originally written in
Latin, have reached us in a rather unsatisfactory condition.
They were first published by Cochlaeus (Basle and Hagenau,
1520), reprinted in P.G., LXXXVI, i, 75-158.
NORIS, Opera Omnia (Verona, 1729), I, 474-504; III, 775-942;
LOOFS, Leontius von Byzanz, 228-61, in Texte unde Untersuch, III
(Leipzig, 1887); DAVIDS in Dict. Christ. Biog., s. v. Maxentius
(4); BARDENHEWER, Patrology, tr. SHAHAN (St. Louis, 1908),
548-49.
N.A. WEBER
Maxentius
Marcus Aurelius Maxentius
Roman Emperor 306-12, son of the Emperor Maximianus Herculius
and son-in-law of the chief Emperor Galerius. After his father's
abdication he lived in Rome as a private citizen; but when
Galerius established in Rome and Italy the new poll and land
taxes decreed by Diocletian he was elected (28 October, 306)
rival emperor. Maxentius owed his elevation not to personal
merit but to the senators and pretorians who, because of the
unusual measures of the emperor, feared lest they should lose
their privileged position. Maxentius's adherents then summoned
his father from Campania to Rome; and the young ruler invested
him with the purple as co-regent. Thus the Roman empire had six
rulers. Severus, the Augustus of the West, received a commission
from Galerius to expel the youthful usurper from Rome; but when
he reached the capital, part of his army deserted to their old
commander, Maximian. Severus with a few followers escaped to
Ravenna so as to maintain military relations with Galerius. He
then made terms with Maximian and surrendered to him, expecting
honourable treatment, but he was imprisoned soon afterwards and,
Galerius approaching from Illyria with an army, he was forced to
commit suicide. Alarmed at Galerius's intervention, Maximian on
behalf of Maxentius, negotiated with Constantine to whom he gave
his daughter Fausta as bride. Meanwhile Galerius with his
Illyrian legions pushed forward to the neighbourhood of Rome,
but finding that he was unable to occupy it or any of the
fortified places, he withdrew his forces. At his suggestion a
conference of all the Caesars took place at Carnuntum on the
Danube (306) in which the prestige of Diocletian had great
influence. Maxentius retained his imperial dignity. Though it is
true that soon after this he put an end to the persecution of
the Christians in Italy and Africa, his reign was stained with
acts of debauchery and cruelty.
After his father's death, Maxentius and Maximin, Emperor of the
East, fearing the political alliance of Constantine and
Licinius, came to an understanding unfriendly to Constantine.
Maxentius made extensive military preparations, and destroyed
the statues and paintings of Constantine. Constantine advanced
over what is now Mont Cenis with a comparatively small but
well-drilled army and, victorious in several battles, occupied
Upper Italy; he then marched against Rome, where his opponent,
strongly entrenched behind the Tiber and the walls of Aurelius,
hoped to resist him successfully. Thoughtlessly and
shortsightedly, Maxentius, abandoning this excellent position,
made a bridge of boats across the Tiber (near the Milvian
Bridge, now Ponte Molle), and awaited the troops of Constantine
on the right bank of the river. It was then that occurred the
miracle related by Eusebius (Vita Constant. I, 28-30), that when
Constantine implored supernatural aid, a fiery cross appeared
over the sun with the legend: touto nika (conquer with this).
Further, he had been advised by Christ, in a dream the previous
night, to go into battle armed with this sign. Maxentius's
soldiers were thrown into confusion by the impetuosity of the
Gallic horsemen, and in the efforts of the retreating masses to
escape over the narrow bridge, many were thrown into the river
and drowned, among them Maxentius (28 October, 312). His son and
counsellors were put to death, but his officials and dependents
retained their positions.
Schiller, Gesch. d. roemischen Kaiserzeit, II (Gotha, 1887); de
Waal, Roma Sacra (Munich, 1905).
Karl Hoeber
Ven. Thomas Maxfield
Ven. Thomas Maxfield
( Vere Macclesfield)
English priest and martyr, b. in Stafford gaol, about 1590,
martyred at Tyburn, London, Monday, 1 July, 1616. He was one of
the younger sons of William Macclesfield of Chesterton and Maer
and Aston, Staffordshire (a firm recusant, condemned to death in
1587 for harbouring priests, one of whom was his brother
Humphrey), and Ursula, daughter of Francis Roos, of Laxton,
Nottinghamshire. William Macclesfield is said to have died in
prison and is one of the praetermissi as William Maxfield; but,
as his death occurred in 1608, this is doubtful. Thomas arrived
at the English College at Douai on 16 march, 1602-3, but had to
return to England 17 May, 1610, owing to ill health. In 1614 he
went back to Douai, was ordained priest, and in the next year
came to London. Within three months of landing he was arrested,
and sent to the Gatehouse, Westminster. After about eight
months' imprisonment, he tried to escape by a rope let down from
the window in his cell, but was captured on reaching the ground.
This was at midnight 14- 15 June, 1616. For seventy hours he was
placed in the stocks in a filthy dungeon at the Gatehouse, and
was then on Monday night (17 June) removed to Newgate, where he
was set amongst the worst criminals, two of whom he converted.
On Wednesday, 26 June, he was brought to the bar at the Old
Bailey, and the next day was condemned solely for being a
priest, under 27 Eliz., c, 2. The Spanish ambassador did his
best to obtain a pardon, or at least a reprieve; but, finding
his efforts unavailing, had solemn exposition of the Blessed
Sacrament in his chapel during the martyr's last night on earth.
The procession to Tyburn early on the following morning was
joined by many devout Spaniards, who, in spite of insults and
mockery, persisted in forming a guard of honour for the martyr.
Tyburn-tree itself was found decorated with garlands, and the
ground round about strewn with sweet herbs. The sheriff ordered
the martyr to be cut down alive, but popular feeling was too
strong, and the disembowelling did not take place till he was
quite senseless. Half of his relics are now at Downside Abbey,
near Bath.
Life and Martyrdom of Mr. Maxfield, Priest 1616, ed. Pollen, in
Catholic Record Society, III, 30-58; Challoner, Memoirs of
Missionary Priests, II (Manchester, 1803), 51; Pollard in Dict.
Nat. Biog., s.v.; Stanton, Menology of England and Wales
(London, 1887), 298; The William Salt Archaeological Society's
Collections for a History of Staffordshire (London, 1882-1909),
III, iii; V, ii, 207; new series, V, 128; XII, 248.
JOHN B. WAINEWRIGHT
Maximianopolis
Maximianopolis
A titular see of Palestina Secunda, suffragan of Scythopolis.
Its ancient name, Adad-Remmon, according to the Vulgate
(according to the Hebrew, Hadad-Rimmon) is found in Zach., xii,
11: ". . .there shall be a great lamentation in Jerusalem like
the lamentation of Adadremmon in the plain of Mageddon," an
allusion to the death of Josias, King of Jerusalem, killed by
the Pharaoh Nechao in the battle fought near this place (IV
Kings, xxiii, 29; II Par. xxxv, 20-25). In the time of the
so-called "Pilgrim of Bordeaux" (ed. Geyer, 19, 27) and of St.
Jerome ("Comment. In Zachar.", ad cap. xii, 11; "Comment. In
Oz.", 5), Adad-Remmon already bore the name of Maximianopolis.
Three of its ancient bishops are known: Paul, in 325 (Gelzer,
"Patrum Nicaenorum nomina", lxi)--not Maximus, as Le Quien gives
it in "Oriens Christianus", III, 703; Megas, in 518, and Domnus,
in 536 (Le Quien, op. cit., 703-06). Maximianopolis has resumed
its ancient name of Rimmon and is now the almost deserted little
village of Roum-meneh, nearly four miles to the south of Ledjun
or Mageddo (see LEGIO).
GUERIN, Description de la Palestine: Samarie (Paris, 1875), II,
228-230; GELZER, Georgii Cyprii Descriptio orbis romani
(Leipzig, 1890), 193-96; LEGENDRE in VIG., Dict. de la Bible,
s.v. Adadremmon.
S. VAILHE
Maximianus
Maximianus
(MARCUS AURELIUS VALERIUS MAXIMIANUS, surnamed HERCULIUS.)
Roman Emperor, was adopted by Diocletian and named his co-regent
in 285, because by this division of the sovereignty the danger
of the warriors' mutiny, the ambitious efforts of the usurpers,
and the attacks of foreign enemies seemed to be prevented in the
surest way. Diocletian gave him, who had been hitherto his
brother-in-arms and was now his fellow regent, the surname
Herculius, in remembrance of the help which the mythological
Hercules rendered his father Jupiter in the latter's struggle
against the giants. Like Diocletian, Maximianus came from
Illyria, from the neighbourhood of Sirmium; as the son of a
simple peasant, he possessed only very little education; he was
violent and brutal, but was a brave fighter. For this reason,
when Diocletian was struggling with the Persians in Asia,
Maximianus was entrusted with the leadership of the punitive
expedition against the peasants and field slaves (Bagaudans) in
Gaul who, driven by economical causes, had risen against
Diocletian. The new emperor soon restored peace, and received
from Diocletian, in token of the latter's gratitude, the title
of Augustus on 1 April, 286. However, only the administration of
the empire was divided; the sovereignty remained centralized now
as ever, and the will of the emperor-in-chief, Diocletian, was
absolute. While Maximianus, having established his head-quarters
at Mainz, was successful in the struggles with the Burgundians
and the Alamanni, who had crossed the frontier and the Rhine, he
found many obstacles in repulsing the Menapian pirate chief
Carausius. Originally commander-in-chief of the Roman navy,
Carausius had pursued and conquered the pirates of the German
ocean; then, driven by greed and ambition, he had forced Britain
to do homage to him, and seized the whole trade in Gaul and
Britain. In 286, he even appropriated the title of Augustus, and
caused coins to be struck which bore his own portrait. Even
Diocletian, by a compromise in 290, was forced to recognize
Carausius as the legal emperor, while the latter agreed to
supply Diocletian with corn, as had been the custom.
As Diocletian left Syria to enter the countries of the Lower
Danube, he met Maximianus, and both the emperors crossed the
Alps in the beginning of 291 in order to attend a conference at
Milan, there to discuss the better administration of the empire
and the improvement of the constitution. Henceforward two
substitutes, called Caesars, were to supplement the two
governing emperors. Constantius and Galerius were proclaimed
Caesars 1 March, 293; the first was forced to marry the
stepdaughter of Maximianus, Theodora, after the exile of his
mother Helena. Maximianus now took charge of the administration
of Italy, Africa, and Spain. His residence was Milan, where he
was surrounded by 6000 Illyrian picked troops, called
Herculians. Constantius on his part was now successful in his
struggle with Carausius. The war came quickly to an end, as
Carausius was assassinated by Allectus, prefect of his guard, in
293. Constantius then reunited Britain with the Roman Empire,
while Maximianus protected the frontiers of Gaul against the
Teutons on the Upper Rhine. When Constantius had returned from
Britain, Maximianus went in 297 to Africa, where he successfully
made war upon the rebellious tribes of the Moors, and sent a
great many captives into the other provinces. In 302 he
celebrated a great triumph with Diocletian in Rome; seventeen
times he had borne the title of Imperator. The persecution of
the Christians, which Diocletian had conducted with reckless
brutality in the East since 303, was also taken up by Maximianus
in the western provinces, of which he was governor.
It is said that during these persecution--it is impossible to
state the time correctly--the Christian soldiers of the Theban
legion also suffered martyrdom in Agaunum (St-Maurice, Canton of
Valais, Switzerland) in the then Diocese of Octodurum. The
Christian soldiers of this legion refused to execute his orders
when Maximianus, on a march over what is now the Great St.
Bernard, commanded them to punish the Christians living in these
districts; for this refusal the legion was twice decimated by
the sword, and, as the survivors held out to the last, all the
soldiers were massacred by order of the emperor. Because Rome
was degraded by Diocletian more and more to the position of a
provincial town, and because Galerius's new and hard system of
taxes was to be extended also to Italy and to Rome, the senators
and the pretorians proclaimed as Caesar M. Aurelius Maxentius,
the son of Maximianus; the latter laid down the purple at Milan.
But the new emperor proved to be incapable of governing, and
Maximianus, who was popular with the army, was recalled to
restore order for the new Augustus. This he did not accomplish,
and the old Diocletian, living as a private person in Salona,
called a meeting of all the members of the dynasties at
Carnuntum for the end of the year 307. Maximianus had to
renounce the purple for the second time. He now went to Gaul,
and gave his youngest daughter Fausta in marriage to
Constantine. As his hope to regain his former imperial dignity
failed here also, he returned to his son Maxentius in Italy.
Repulsed by the latter and spurned by Galerius on account of his
ambitions, he departed once more for Gaul and donned the
imperial purple for the third time. When the news of
Constantine's approach reached his own soldiers, they
surrendered him to his rival and opponent at Marsilia. Although
Constantine in his generosity pardoned him, he returned to the
forging of nefarious schemes against his son-in-law, and finally
was compelled to take his own life in 310.
SCHILLER, Gesch. d. romischen Kaiserzeit; ALLARD, La persecution
de Diocletien et le triomphe de l'eglise (Paris, 1890).
KARL HOEBER
Maximilian
Maximilian
The name of several martyrs.
(1) Maximilian of Antioch
A soldier, martyred at Antioch, Jan. 353, with Bonosus, a fellow
soldier, of the Herculean cohort; they were standard-bearers,
and refused to remove the chrismon (monogram of Christ) from the
standard, as had been ordered by Julian the Apostate. Count
Julian, uncle of the emperor, commanded them to replace the
chrismon with images of idols, and, upon their refusal, had them
tortured and beheaded. The Roman martyrology and most other
calendars mention them on 21 August, while in a few
martyrologies and in the heading which is prefixed to their
Acts, 21 Sept. (XII Kal. Oct.) is designated as the day of their
martyrdom. Both dates are wrong, as is evident from the Acts of
the two martyrs, which represent Count Julian as infected with
an ugly disease, contracted at the martyrdom of St. Theodoret 23
Oct., 362.
(2) Maximilian of Celeia
His Acts, composed in the thirteenth century and unreliable, say
he was b. at Celeia (Cilli, Styria), made a pilgrimage to Rome,
went as missionary to Noricum, became Archbishop of Laureacum
(Lorch, near Passau), and suffered martyrdom under Numerianus
(283-4). It is historically certain that Maximilian was a
missionary in Noricum during the latter half of the third
century, founded the church of Lorch, and suffered martyrdom.
His cult dates at least from the eighth century. In that
century, St. Rupert built a church in his honour at
Bischofshofen, and brought his relics thither. They were
transferred to Passau in 985. His feast is celebrated 12 Oct.,
at some places 29 Oct.
(3) Maximilian of Thebeste
Martyred at Thebeste near Carthage, 12 March, 295. Thinking a
Christian was not permitted to be a soldier, he refused to enter
the army and was beheaded. Since death was not then the legal
punishment for those who refused to join the army (Arrius
Menander, Digest XLIX, xvi, 4 P. 10), it is probable that he was
beheaded because he gave his Christianity as the reason of his
refusal. He was buried at Carthage by the noble matron
Pompejana.
Acta SS., Aug., IV, 425-430; RUINART, Acta Martyrum (Ratisbon,
1859), 609-12; LECLERCQ, Les Martyrs, III (Paris, 1904), 100-04;
TILLEMONT, Memoires pour servir a l'hist. eccles. des six
premiers siecles, VII (Paris, 1700), 405-09; TAMAYO, Discursos
apologeticos de las reliquias d. S. Bonoso y Maximiliano (Baeza,
1632). (2) Vita ac legenda S. Maximiliani in PEZ, Script. rerum
Austr., I, 22-34. Concerning its value see RETTBERG,
Kirschengesch. Deutschl., I (Gottingen, 1846), 158 sq.
RATZINGER, Forsch. zur Bayr. Gesch. (Kempten, 1898), 325 sq.;
KERSCHBAUMER, Gesch. des Bist. St. Poelten (1875), I, 61-78. (3)
ALLARD, La persecution de Diocletien, I (Paris, 1908), 99-105;
HARNACK Militia Christi (Tubingen, 1905), 114 sq.; RUINART, Acta
Martyrum (Ratisbon, 1859), 340-2, Fr. tr. LECLERCQ, Les Martyrs,
II (Paris, 1903), 152-5.
MICHAEL OTT
Maximilian I
Maximilian I
Duke of Bavaria, 1598-1622, Elector of Bavaria and Lord High
Steward of the Holy Roman Empire, 1623-1651; b. at Munich, 17
April, 1573; d. at Ingolstadt, 27 September, 1651. The lasting
services he rendered his country and the Catholic Church justly
entitle him to the surname of "Great". He was the son of zealous
Catholic parents, William V, the Pious, of Bavaria, and Renate
of Lorraine. Mentally well endowed, Maximilian received a strict
Catholic training from private tutors and later (1587-91)
studied law, history, and mathematics at the University of
Ingolstadt. He further increased his knowledge by visits to
foreign courts, as Prague and Naples, and to places of
pilgrimage including Rome, Loretto, and Einsiedeln. Thus
equipped Maximilian assumed (15 Oct., 1597) the government of
the small, thinly populated country at his father's wish during
the latter's lifetime. Owing to the over-lenient rule of the two
preceding rulers the land was burdened with a heavy debt. By
curtailing expenditure and enlarging the revenues, chiefly by
working the salt-mines himself and by increasing the taxes
without regard to the complaints of the powerless estates, the
finances were not only brought into a better condition, but it
was also possible to collect a reserve fund which, in spite of
the unusually difficult conditions of the age, was never quite
exhausted. At the same time internal order was maintained by a
series of laws issued in 1616. Maximilian gave great attention
to military matters. No other German prince of that time
possessed an army so well organized and equipped. Its commander
was the veteran soldier from the Netherlands Johann Tserclaes,
Count of Tilly, who, austere himself, knew how to maintain
discipline among his troops. The fortifications at Ingolstadt on
the Danube were greatly strengthened, and Munich and other towns
were surrounded by walls and moats. Well-filled arsenals were
established in different places as preparation for time of need.
Opportunity for the use of this armament soon offered itself.
The small free city of Donauwoerth fell under the imperial ban
for violating the religious peace. In executing the imperial
decree Maximilian not only succeeded in bringing this city into
subjection to Bavaria but also in re-establishing the Catholic
Church as the one and only religion in it. This led to the
forming (1608) of the Protestant Union, an offensive and
defensive confederation of Protestant princes, in opposition to
which arose in 1609 the Catholic League organized by Maximilian.
Oddly enough, both coalitions were headed by princes of the
Wittelsbach line: Maximilian I as head of the League, Frederick
IV of the Palatinate, of the Union. The Thirty Years' War,
during which Bavaria suffered terribly, broke out in 1619. Under
Tilly's leadership the Bohemian revolt was crushed at the battle
of the White Mountain (Weissen Berg) near Prague, 8 November,
1620, and the newly elected King of Bohemia, Frederick V, forced
to flee. His allies, the Margrave of Baden and the Duke of
Brunswick, were defeated by the forces of Bavaria and the League
at Wimpfen and Hochst (1622), as was also at a later date (1626)
King Christian of Denmark. Conditions, however, changed when
Maximilian, through jealousy of the House of Hapsburgh, was led
in 1630 to seek the dismissal of the head of the imperial army,
Wallenstein. The youthful Swedish king, Gustavus Adolphus,
defeated Tilly, the veteran leader of the army of the League at
Breitenfeld (1631), and in a battle with Gustavus Adolphus near
the Lech, 16 April, 1632, Tilly was again vanquished, receiving
a wound from which he died two weeks later at Ingolstadt.
Although the siege of this city by the Swedes was unsuccessful,
Gustavus plundered the Bavarian towns and villages, laid waste
the country and pillaged Munich.
Maximilian, who since 1623 had been both Elector and ruler of
the Upper Palatinate, implored Wallenstein, now once more the
head of the imperial forces, for help in vain until he agreed to
place himself and his army under Wallenstein's command. The
united forces under Wallenstein took up an entrenched position
near Nuremberg where Wallenstein repulsed the Swedish attacks;
by advancing towards Saxony he even forced them to evacuate
Maximilian's territories. The relief to Bavaria, however, was
not of long duration. After the death of Gustavus Adolphus at
the battle of Luetzen (1632) Bernhard of Weimar, unmolested by
Wallenstein, ravaged Bavaria until he received a crushing defeat
the battle of Nordlingen (6 Sept., 1634). Even in the last ten
years of the war the country was not spared from hostile
attacks. Consequently Maximilian sought by means of a truce with
the enemy (1647) to gain for Bavaria an opportunity to recover.
The desired result, however, not being attained, he united his
forces to those of the imperial army, but the allied troops were
not sufficient to overthrow the confederated French and Swedes,
and once more suffered all the terrors of a pitiless invasion.
The fighting ended with the capture of the Swedish generals, 6
Oct., 1648, and the Peace of Westphalia was signed at Munster,
24 Oct. of the same year. The material benefits derived by
Maximilian from his attitude in politics were meagre: the
Electoral dignity, the office of Lord High Steward, and the
Upper Palatinate. The abstract gains, on the other hand, appear
far greater. Not only since then has Bavaria had the second
place among the Catholic principalities of Germany, ranking next
to Austria, but for centuries a strong bulwark was opposed to
the advance of Protestantism, and the latter was, at times, even
driven back. A few years after the Peace of Westphalia and
eighteen months after the administration of Bavaria had been
transferred to his still minor son Ferdinand Maria, Maximilian's
eventful and troublesome life closed. He was buried in the
church of St. Michael at Munich. A fine equestrian statue,
designed by Thorwaldsen and cast by Stiglmayer, was erected at
Munich by King Louis I in 1839.
Although there was almost incessant war during his reign, and
Bavaria in the middle of the seventeenth century was like a
desert, nevertheless Maximilian did much for the arts, e.g. by
building the palace, the Mariensaeule (Mary Column), etc.
Learning also, especially at the University of Ingolstadt, had
in this era distinguished representatives. The Jesuit Balde was
a brilliant writer both of Latin and German verse and Father
Scheiner, another member of the same order, was the first to
discover the spots on the sun; historians also, such as Heinrich
Canisius, Matthias Rader, etc., produced important works of
lasting merit.
Maximilian, however, gave for more attention to the advancement
of religion among the people than to art and learning. He
founded five Jesuit colleges: Amberg, Burghausen, Landshut,
Mindelheim, and Straubing. Besides establishing a monastery for
the Minims and one for the Carmelites at Munich, he founded nine
monasteries for Franciscans and fourteen for Capuchins who
venerate him as one of their greatest benefactors. He also
founded at Munich a home for aged and infirm Court officials,
and gave 30,000 guldens for the Chinese missions, as well as
large sums to the Scotch-English college of the Jesuits at
Liege. His private charities among the poor and needy of all
descriptions were unlimited.
Maximilian was endowed with an uncommon ability for work. He was
also sincerely religious and rigidly moral in conduct; he even
went beyond the permissible in his efforts to uphold and spread
the faith. Maintaining like all princes of his time the axiom
"Cujus regio ejus religio", he not only put down every movement
in opposition to the Church in his country but also exterminated
Calvinism and Lutheranism root and branch in the territories he
had acquired. Where admonition and instruction were not
sufficient the soldier stepped in, and the poor people, who had
already been obliged to change their faith several times with
change of ruler, had now no choice but return to the Church or
exile. Maximilian, in addition, never lost sight of secular
advantage, as is shown by his numerous acquisitions of
territory. Especially valuable was the purchase of two-thirds of
the countship of Helfenstein, now a part of Wurtemberg, which as
a Bavarian dependence was preserved to the Church and has
remained Catholic up to the present time, notwithstanding its
Protestant surroundings. Maximilian was twice married. The first
marriage was childless. By his second wife Maria, daughter of
the Emperor Ferdinand II, whom he married 15 July, 1635, he had
two sons; the elder of these, Ferdinand Maria, as already
mentioned, succeeded him.
STIEVE, Maximilian I in Allgem. Deutsche Biog., XXI (1885)21
sq., gives bibliography before 1885; cf. the statements in
DOBERL, Entwicklungsgeschichte Bayerns, I (2nd ed.,
1908).--HAGL, Die Bekehrung der Oberpfalz (2 vols., 1903);
RABEL, Das ehemaliga Benediktiner-Adelstift Weissenohe in Jahrb.
des Hist. Vereins Bomberg (1908).--For the founding of
monasteries by Maximilian: EBERL, Gesch. d. bay.
Kapuzinerodensprovinz 1593-1902 (1902).--DEUTINGER, Beitrage zur
Geschichte des Erzbisthums Munchen-Freising, New Series, I
(1901).--LAVISSE-RAMBAUD, Histoire generale, V, 508 sqq.; HIMLY,
Hist. de la formation territoriale des etats de l'Europe
centrale, II (1876), 164 sqq.; CORREARD, Precis d'histoire
moderne et contemporaine, 36 sqq.
PIUS WITTMANN
St. Maximinus
St. Maximinus
Bishop of Trier, b. at Silly near Poitiers, d. there, 29 May,
352 or 12 Sept., 349. He was educated and ordained priest by St.
Agritius, whom he succeeded as Bishop of Trier in 332 or 335. At
that time Trier was the government seat of the Western Emperor
and, by force of his office, Maximinus stood in close relation
with the Emperors Constantine II and Constans. He was a
strenuous defender of the orthodox faith against Arianism and an
intimate friend of St. Athanasius, whom he harboured as an
honoured guest during his exile of two years and four months
(336-8) at Trier. He likewise received with honours the banished
patriarch Paul of Constantinople in 341 and effected his recall
to Constantinople. When four Arian bishops came from Antioch to
Trier in 342 with the purpose of winning Emperor Constans to
their side, Maximinus refused to receive them and induced the
emperor to reject their proposals. In conjunction with Pope
Julius I and Bishop Hosius of Cordova, he persuaded the Emperor
Constans to convene the Synod of Sardica in 343 and probably
took part in it. That the Arians considered him as one of their
chief opponents is evident from the fact that they condemned by
name along with Pope Julius I and Hosius of Cordova at their
heretical synod of Philippopolis in 343 (Mans, "Sacrorum Conc.
nova et ampl. Coll.", III, 136 sq.). In 345 he took part in the
Synod of Milan and is said to have presided over a synod held at
Cologne in 346, where Bishop Euphratas of Cologne was deposed on
account of his leanings toward Arianism. {Concerning the
authenticity of the Acts of this synod see the new French
translation of Hefele's "Conciliengeschichte", I, ii (Paris,
1907), pp. 830-34.} He also sent Sts. Castor and Lubentius as
missionaries to the valleys of the Mosel and the Lahn. It is
doubtful whether the Maximinus whom the usurper Magnentius sent
as legate to Constantinople in the interests of peace is
identical with the Bishop of Trier (Athanasius, "Apol. ad Const.
Imp.", 9). His cult began right after his death. His feast is
celebrated on 29 May, on which day his name stands in the
martyrologies of St. Jerome, St. Bede, St. Ado, and others.
Trier honours him as its patron. In the autumn of 353 his body
was buried in the church of St. John near Trier, where in the
seventh century was founded the famous Benedictine abbey of St.
Maximinus, which flourished till 1802.
A life, full of fabulous accounts, by a monk of St. Maximinus in
the eighth century, is printed in Acta SS., May, VII, 21-24. The
same life, revised by SERVATUS LUPUS, is found in MIGNE, P.L.
CXIX, 21-24, and in Mon. Germ. Script. rerum Merov., III, 74-82;
DIEL, Der heilige Maximinus und der heilige Paulinus, Bischofe
von Trier (Trier, 1875); CHAMARD, St. Maximin de Treves, St.
Athenase et les semi-Ariens in Revue des Quest. hist., II
(Paris, 1867), 66-96; BENNETT in Dict. Christ. Biog., s.v.
MICHAEL OTT
Caius Valerius Daja Maximinus
Caius Valerius Daja Maximinus
Under his uncle Augustus Galerius, the Caesar of Syria and
Egypt, from the year 305; in 307 following the example of
Constantine, he assumed the title of Augustus. When Galerius
died in 311, the Caesar, Licinius, set out for the Hellespont to
besiege the provinces of the Near East. Maximinus obtained the
sympathy of the population by granting a remission of taxation
to the threatened provinces; also, he had in his power
Galerius's widow and Valeria, Diocletian's daughter. An
agreement was made fixing the Aegean Sea and the straits between
Europe and Asia as the boundaries of the dominions and as no new
Caesars were appointed, there were three legal emperors. Thus
Diocletian's plan of governing the empire was abandoned.
Maximinus, a fanatical idolater and tyrant, continued the
persecution of the Christians in his part of the empire with
especial severity and persistency, even where the cruel Galerius
had ceased. Besides sanguinary measures for the suppression of
Christianity, he made attempts to establish in both town and
country a heathen organization similar to the Christian Church.
The emperor made the heathen high-priests and magicians of equal
rank with the governors of provinces. His attempt to achieve
renown by a war against the Persians in Armenia was frustrated
by pestilence and bad harvests (Eusebius). When Constantine and
Licinius published the edict of toleration for the Christians at
Milan in 312, and Maximinus was asked to promulgate it in his
part of the empire, he did so, because he saw clearly that it
was directed against his anti-Christian policy. When in the
winter of 312 Constantine's Gallic troops were withdrawn from
Italy, and Licinius was still at Milan, Maximinus pushed on by
forced marches to the capital, Byzantium, and captured it
together with Heraclea. Licinius, taken by surprise, offered to
make terms with him, which Maximinus trusting to gain an easy
victory refused. Contrary to his expectation, and in spite of
the superiority in numbers of his troops, he was defeated near
Adrianople, 30 April, 313, and fled precipitately to Nicomedia
to endeavor to rally his army. Licinius harassing him
incessantly, published an edict of toleration for the Christians
of Nicomedia so that Maximinus was obliged to withdraw to the
Taurus where he entrenched himself in the passes. He then tried
to win the Christians by issuing an edict of toleration; but his
military situation was hopeless and he took poison (313).
Licinius exterminated the Jovian family, murdering all the
relatives of Diocletian who were at the court of Maximin. The
edicts of the deceased emperor were cancelled, and decrees
favourable to the Christians were now promulgated in the East.
SCHILLER, Gesch. der romischen Kaiserzeit, II (Gotha, 1887).
KARL HOEBER
Maximinus Thrax
Caius Julius Verus Maximinus Thrax
Roman Emperor 235-8, son of a Goth and an Alanic mother. When
the Emperor Septimius Severus was returning through Thrace in
202, Maximinus, a shepherd of enormous stature and strength,
distinguished himself in a contest with the soldiers by such
Herculean strength and bravery that the emperor enrolled him in
the Roman body-guard. Refusing to serve under the worthless
emperors, Macrinus and Heliogabalus, he withdrew from the army;
but under the righteous Alexander Severus he was entrusted with
the command of the newly raised Pannonian troops. These,
desiring a real warrior at their head instead of the youthful
and timid Alexander, who was entirely subject to his mother
Julia Mamaea, invested him with the purple at Mainz, in March,
235, at the same time proclaiming his son Maximus co-regent. The
adherents of the former Syrian dynasty and of the senate tried
unsuccessfully to overthrow him. Maximinus taking the field with
great energy and persistence against the Germans across the
Rhine, regained the district of the Agri Decumates and then
waged successful war against the Sarmatians and the Dacians on
the Danube. Assuming the names of Germanicus and Sarmaticus, he
proceeded with sentences of death and confiscation against the
patrician Romans, who disliked him as a wild and uncultured
barbarian; on the other hand he distributed the State revenues
among the soldiers who were devoted to him. He had the bronze
statues of the gods and their treasures melted down and coined;
he plundered cities and temples, and caused so much discontent
that a rebellion broke out in February, 238, among the peasantry
in Africa. The procurator and octogenarian consul at Carthage
were killed.
M. Antonius Gordianus and his son of the same name, were made
co-regent emperors. The Roman senate willingly recognized them,
because they promised, like the Antonines in former times, to
govern according to its decisions; the people despising
Maximinus, who had never once set foot in the capital of the
empire, agreed with the senate. Maximinus was outlawed, and his
death was rumoured, but he sent Capellianus, Procurator of
Numidia, against the adherents of the Gordiani, and in the
struggle, the younger Gordian lost his life whereupon the senior
hanged himself in despair. Their reign had lasted little more
than a month. The senate now decided to elect two emperors with
equal authority, M. Clodius Pupienus Maximus who was to exercise
the military power de facto, and Decimus Caelius Balbinus who
was to direct the civil government in the capital. The Romans
dissatisfied with this arrangement, for they had expected great
advantages from the rule of the African emperors, raised to the
rank of Caesar the elder Gordian's twelve year old grandson
(afterwards Gordian III), then residing in Rome. Severe street
fighting occurred in Rome between the veterans of Maximinus and
the people. Owing to scanty commissariat Maximinus could only
move his troops slowly from Pannonia. Meanwhile the senate
levied troops, constructed arsenals, and by creating twenty
military districts, placed Italy in a satisfactory defensive
position. When Maximinus arrived in Upper Italy, he could not at
once cross the Isonzo on account of the floods and his attacks
on the stronghold of Aquileia were repulsed. Under the foolish
impression that his officers were the cause of his misfortunes,
he had several of them executed, thereby arousing discontent
among the soldiers, especially in the Second Parthian Legion
whose wives and children were in the power of the Roman Senate
at Albano. A mutiny suddenly occurring, Maximin and his son were
murdered. Pupienus, who hastened thither from Ravenna, rewarded
the troops liberally and administered to them the oath of
fidelity on behalf of the three senator emperors resident in
Rome.
MOMMSEN, Romische Geschichte, V (Berlin, 1885); SCHILLER, Gesch.
d. rom. Kaiserzeit, vol. I, pt. II (Gotha, 1883); DOMASZEWSKI,
Gesch. der rom. Kaiserzeit, II (Leipzig, 1909).
KARL HOEBER
Maximopolis
Maximopolis
A titular see of Arabia, suffragan of Bostra. The true name of
the city is Maximianopolis, and so it appears in the "Notitia
episcopatuum" of the Patriarch Anastasius in the sixth century
("Echos d'Orient", X, Paris, 1907, 145). Pursuant to a decree of
the Propaganda (1885), the title is to be suppressed in future;
Torquato Amellini having confounded this town with
Maximianopolis in Palestina Secunda ("Catalogo dei vescovati
titolari", Rome, 1884, appendix 8). Its last titular was
consecrated in 1876. Two ancient bishops of this see are known:
Severus, a signatory of the Council of Chalcedon in 451 (Mansi,
"Coll. Conc.", VII, 168), and Peter, known by an inscription
(Waddington, "Inscriptions grecques et latines de Grece et
l'Asie-Mineure", no. 2361). The name which preceded that of
Maximianopolis is not known, and we are equally ignorant of its
actual identification, though many authorities place it at
Sheikh-Miskin, a locality in the Hauran, famous for the extent
and beauty of its ruins, where an inscription has been found
bearing the name of Bishop Thomas ("Bulletin de corresp.
hellenique," Paris, 1897, 52).
S. VAILHE
St. Maximus of Constantinople
St. Maximus of Constantinople
Known as the Theologian and as Maximus Confessor, born at
Constantinople about 580; died in exile 13 August, 662. He is
one of the chief names in the Monothelite controversy one of the
chief doctors of the theology of the Incarnation and of ascetic
mysticism, and remarkable as a witness to the respect for the
papacy held by the Greek Church in his day. This great man was
of a noble family of Constantinople. He became first secretary
to the Emperor Heraclius, who prized him much, but he quitted
the world and gave himself up to contemplation in a monastery at
Chrysopolis, opposite Constantinople. He became abbot there- but
seems to have left this retreat on account of its insecurity
from hostile attacks. He speaks of the Palestinian ascetic St.
Sophronius afterwards Patriarch of Jerusalem, as his master,
father, and teacher (Ep. 13), so that he probably passed some
time with him, and he was with him in Africa with other monks
during the preparations which issued in the "watery union" by
which Cyrus the Patriarch reconciled a number of Monophysites to
the Church by rejecting the doctrine of "two operations" in
Christ (see MONOTHELITISM) . The first action of St. Maximus
that we know of in this affair is a letter sent by him to
Pyrrhus, then an abbot at Chrysopolis, a friend and supporter of
Sergius, Patriarch of Constantinople, the patron of the
Monothelite expression "two operations" . As the letter is said
to have entailed a long voyage on the monks who carried it St.
Maximus was perhaps already in Africa when he wrote it. Pyrrhus
had published a work on the Incarnation, for which St. Maximus
gives him rather fulsome praise, as an introduction to the
question (which he puts with much diffidence and many excuses)
what Pyrrhus means by one energeia or energema. Maximus is
clearly anxious to get him to withdraw or explain the mistaken
expression, without exasperating him by contradiction.
The Ecthesis of Heraclius was published in 638, and Sergius and
Pope Honorius both died in that year. A letter of Maximus tells
us on the authority of his friends at Constantinople, that the
Roman apocrisiarii who had come thither to obtain the emperor's
confirmation for the newly elected Pope Severinus, were met by
the clergy of Constantinople with the demand that they should
promise to obtain the pope's signature to the Ecthesis,
otherwise they should receive no assistance in the matter for
which they had made so long a voyage:
Having discovered the tenor of the document, since by refusing they
would have caused the first and Mother of Churches, and the city, to
remain so long a time in widowhood, they replied quietly: We cannot
act with authority in this matter, for we have received a commission
to execute, not an order to make a profession of faith. But we
assure you that we will relate all that you have put forward, and we
will show the document itself to him who is to be consecrated, and
if he should judge it to be correct, we will ask him to append his
slgnature to it. But do not therefore place any obstacle in our way
now, or do violence to us by delaying us and keeping us here. For
none has a right to use violence especially when faith is in
question. For herein even the weakest waxes mighty and the meek
becomes a warrior, and by comforting his soul with the Divine Word,
is hardened against the greatest attack. How much more in the case
of the clergy and Church of the Romans, which from of old until now,
as the elder of all the Churches under the sun, presides over all?
Having surely received this canonically, as well from councils and
the Apostles, as from the princes of the latter, and being numbered
in their company, she is subject to no writings or issues of
synodical documents, on account of the eminence of her pontificate,
even as in all these things all are equally subject to her according
to sacerdotal law. And so when without fear but with all holy and
becoming confidence, those ministers of the truly firm and immovable
rock, that is, of the most great and Apostolic Church at Rome, had
so replied to the clergy of the royal city, they were seen to have
conciliated them and to have acted prudently, that the others might
be humble and modest, while they made known the orthodoxy and purity
of their own faith from the beginning. But those of Constantinople,
admiring their piety, thought that such a deed ought to be
recompensed; and ceasing from urging the document on them, they
promised by their diligence to procure the issue of the emperor's
order with regard to the episcopal election . . Of the aforesaid
document a copy has been sent to me also. They have explained in it
the cause for being silent about the natural operations in Christ
our God, that is, in His natures, of which and in which He is
believed to be, and how in future neither one nor two are to be
mentioned. It is only to be allowed to confess that the divine and
human (works) proceeded from the same Word of God incarnate, and are
to be attributed to one and the same (person)."
This passage does not call the prohibition of "two operations"
yet by the name of heresy and does not mention the "one Will"
confessed in the Ecthesis. But it gives verv clearly St.
Maximus's view that the smallest point of faith is to be held at
the risk of one's life, and it demonstrates the ample admission
made at Constantinople, before the struggles began, of the
prerogatives of Rome.
When in 641 John IV wrote his defence of Pope Honorius, it was
re-echoed by St. Maximus in a letter to Marinus, a priest of
Cyprus. He declares that Honorius, when he confessed one will of
our Lord, only meant to deny that Christ had a will of the
flesh, of concupiscence, since he was conceived and born without
stain of sin. Maximus appeals to the witness of Abbot John
Symponus, who wrote the letter for Honorius. Pyrrhus was now
Sergius's successor, but on the accession of the Emperor
Constans in 642 he was exiled. Maximus then sent a letter to the
patrician Peter, apparently the Governor of Syria and Palestine
who had written to him concerning Pyrrhus, whom he now calls
simply abbot. Pyrrhus was in Palestine and Peter had restrained
him from putting forward his heretical views. Pyrrhus had
declared that he was ready to satisfy Maximus as to his
orthodoxy. The latter says he would have written to Peter before
but I was afraid of being thought to transgress the holy laws, if I
were to do this without knowing the will of the most holy see of
Apostolic men, who lead aright the whole plenitude of the Catholic
Church, and rule it with order according to the divine law.
The new Ecthesis is worse than the old heresies- Pyrrhus and his
predecessor have accused Sophronius of error- they persuaded
Heraclius to give his name to the Ecthesis:
they have not conformed to the sense of the Apostolic see, and what
is laughable, or rather lamentable, as proving their ignorance, they
have not hesitated to lie against the Apostolic see itself . . . but
have claimed the great Honorius on their side. . . . What did the
divine Honorius do, and after him the aged Severinus, and John who
followed him? Yet further, what supplication has the blessed pope,
who now sits, not made? Have not the whole East and West brought
their tears, laments, obsecrations, deprecations, both before God in
prayer and before men in their letters? If the Roman see recognizes
Pyrrhus to be not only a reprobate but a heretic, it is certainly
plain that everyone who anathematizes those who have rejected
Pyrrhus, anathematizes the see of Rome that is, he anathematizes the
Catholic Church. I need hardly add that he excommunicates himself
also, if indeed he be in communion with the Roman see and the Church
of God.... It is not right that one who has been condemned and cast
out by the Apostolic see of the city of Rome for his wrong opinions
should be named with any kind of honour, until he be received by
her, having returned to her -- nay, to our Lord -- by a pious
confession and orthodox faith, by which he can receive holiness and
the title of holy.... Let him hasten before all things to satisfy
the Roman see, for if it is satisfied all will agree in calling him
pious and orthodox. For he only speaks in vain who thinks he ought
to persuade or entrap persons like myself, and does not satisfy and
implore the blessed pope of the most holy Church of the Romans, that
is, the Apostolic see, which from the incarnate Son of God Himself,
and also by all holy synods, according to the holy canons and
definitions, has received universal and supreme dominion, authority
and power of binding and loosing over all the holy Churches of God
which are in the whole world -- for with it the Word who is above
the celestial powers binds and looses in heaven also. For if he
thinks he must satisfy others, and fails to implore the most blessed
Roman pope, he is acting like a man who, when accused of murder or
some other crime, does not hasten to prove his innocence to the
judge appointed by the law, but only uselessly and without profit
does his best to demonstrate his innocence to private individuals,
who have no power to acquit him.
Pyrrhus thought he might regain his see by the help of the pope.
He came to Africa, and in July, 645, a public disputation took
place between him and Maximus, in the presence of the Governor
Gregory (called George in the MSS. of St. Maximus), who was a
friend and correspondent of the saint. The minutes are
interesting. Pyrrhus argues that two wills must imply two
Persons willing- Maximus replies that in that case there must be
three wills in the Holy Trinity. He shows that the will belongs
to the Nature, and distinguishes between will as a faculty and
will as the act of the faculty. Pyrrhus then admits two wills,
on account of the two natures, but adds that we should also
confess one will on account of the perfect union. Maximus
replies that this would lead us to confess one nature on account
of the perfect union. He then cites many passages of Scripture
for two wills and two operations. Pyrrhus puts forward Honorius
and Vigilius. Maximus defends the former from the charge of
teaching two wills, and denies that the latter ever rece*ed the
letter of Mennas, the authenticity of which is assumed. He
complains of the changeableness of Sergius. Lastly the famous
"new theandric operation" of the Pseudo-Dionysius is discussed,
and i8 explained and defended by St. Maximus. Then Pyrrhus gives
in, and consents to go to Rome, where in fact he condemned his
former teaching, and was reconciled to the Church by the pope.
But the revolt of aregory, who made himself emperor in Africa,
but was defeated in 647, brought Maximus into disfavour at
court, and destroyed the hope of restoring Pyrrhus a8 orthodox
patriarch. After the Ecthesis had been withdrawn, and the Type,
Typos, substituted by the Emperor Constans, St. Maximus was
present at the great Lateran council held by St. Martin at his
instance in 649. He wrote from Rome (where he stayed some
years):
The extremities of the earth, and all in every part of it who purely
and rightly confess the Lord look directly towards the most holy
Roman Church and its confession and faith, as it were to a sun of
unfailing light, awaiting from it the bright radiance of the sacred
dogmas of our Fathers according to what the six inspired and holy
councils have purely and piously decreed, declaring most expressly
the symbol of faith. For from the coming down of the incarnate Word
amongst us, all the Churches in every part of the world have held
that greatest Church alone as their base and foundation, seeing that
according to the promise of Christ our Saviour, the gates of hell do
never prevail against it, that it has the keys of a right confession
and faith in Him, that it opens the true and only religion to such
as approach with piety, and shuts up and locks every heretical mouth
that speaks injustice against the Most High.
Pope Martin was dragged from Rome in 653, and died of ill
treatment at Inkerman in March, 655. It was probably later in
that year that an official named Gregory came to Rome to get
Pope Eugene to receive the Type. He came to the cell of St.
Maximus, who argued with him and denounced the Type. As the
saint was recognized as the leader of the orthodox Easterns, he
was sent to Constantinople at the end of 655 (not, as is
commonly stated, at the same time as St. Martin). He was now
seventy-five years old. The acts of his trials have been
preserved by Anastasius Bibliothecarius. He was accused of
conspiring with the usurper Gregory, together with Pope
Theodore, and it was said that he had caused the loss to the
empire of Egypt, Alexandria, Pentapolis, and Africa. He refused
to communicate with the See of Constantinople,
because they have cast out the four holy councils by the
propositions made at Alexandria, by the Ecthesis and by the Type . .
. and because the dogmas which they asserted in the propositions
they damned in the Ecthesis, and what they proclaimed in the
Ecthesis they annulled in the Type, and on each occasion they
deposed themselves. What mysteries I ask, do they celebrate, who
have condemned themselves and have been condemned by the Romans and
by the (Lateran) synod, and stripped of their sacerdotal dignity?
He disbelieved the statement made to him that the envoys of the
pope had accepted the confession of "two wills on account of the
diversity and one will on account of the union," and pointed out
that the union not being a substance could have no will. He
wrote on this account to his disciple the Abbot Anastasius, who
was able to send a letter to warn "the men of elder Rome firm as
a rock" of the deceitful confession which the Patriarch Peter
was despatching to the pope. On the day of the first trial a
council of clergy was held, and the emperor was persuaded to
send Maximus to Byzia in Thrace, and his disciples, Abbot
Anastasius and Anastasius the papal apocrisiarius, to Perberis
and Mesembria.
They suffered greatly from cold and hunger. On 24 September,
656, Theodosius, Bishop of Caesarea in Bithynia, visited Maximus
by the emperor's command, accompanied by the consuls, Theodosius
and Paul. The saint confounded his visitors with the authority
of the Fathers, and declared that he would never accept the
Type. The bishop then replied: "We declare to you in response
that if you will communicate, our master the emperor will annul
the Type." Maximus answered that the Ecthesis, though taken
down, had not been disowned and that the canons of the Lateran
Council must be formally accepted before he would communicate.
The Byzantine bishop unblushingly urged: "The synod is invalid,
since it was held without the Ernperor's orders." Maximus
retorts: "If it is not pious faith but the order of the emperor
that validates synods, let them accept the synods that were held
against the Homoousion at Tyre, at Antioch, at Seleucia, and the
Robber council of Ephesus."
The bishop is ready to consent to two wills and two operations:
but St. Maximus says he is himself but a monk and cannot receive
his declaration- the bishop, and also the emperor, and the
patriarch and his synod, must send a supplication to the pope.
Then all arose with joy and tears, and knelt down and prayed,
and kissed the Gospels and the crucifix and the image of the
Mother of God, and all embraced. But the consul doubted:
"Do you think," he said, "that the emperor will make a
supplication to Rome?"
"Yes," said the abbot, "if he will humble himself as God has
humbled Himself."
The bishop gave him money and a tunic, but the tunic was seized
by the Bishop of Byzia. On 8 September, the abbot was honourably
sent to Rhegium, and next day two patricians arrived in state
with Bishop Theodosius and offered the saint great honour if he
would accept the Type and communicate with the emperor. Maximus
solemnly turned to the bishop and reminded him of the day of
judgment.
"What could I do if the emperor took another view?" whispered
the miserable man. The abbot was struck and spat upon. The
patrician Epiphanius declared that all now accepted two wills
and two operations, and that the Type was only a compromise.
Maximus reiterated the Roman view that to forbid the use of an
expression was to deny it. Next morning, 19 September, the saint
was stripped of his money and even of his poor stock of clothes,
and was conveyed to Salembria, and thence to Perberis (Perbera).
Six years later, in 662, Maximus and the two Anastasii were
brought to trial at Constantinople. They were anathematized, and
with them St. Martin and St. Sophronius. The prefect was ordered
to beat them, to cut out their tongues and lop off their right
hands, to exhibit them thus mutilated in every quarter of the
city, and to send them to perpetual exile and imprisonment. A
long letter of the Roman Anastasius tells us of their sufferings
on the journey to Colchis where they were imprisoned in
different forts. He tells us that St. Maxirmus foresaw in a
vision the day of his death, and that miraculous lights appeared
nightly at his tomb. The monk Anastasius had died in the
preceding month; the Roman lived on until 666.
Thus St. Maximus died for orthodoxy and obedience to Rome. He
has always been considered one of the chief theological writers
of the Greek Church, and has obtained the honourable title of
the Theologian. He may be said to complete and close the series
of patristic writings on the Incarnation, as they are summed up
by St. John of Damascus. His style is unfortunately very
obscure, but he is accurate in his thought and deeply learned in
the Fathers. His exegetical works explain Holy Scripture
allegorically. We have commentaries on Psalm 59, on the Lord's
Prayer, and a number of explanations of different texts. These
are principally intended for the use of monks, and deal much
with mystical theology. More professedly mystical are his
"Scholia" on Pseudo-Dionysius, his explanations of difficulties
in Dionysius and St. Gregory Nazianzen and his "Ambigua" on St.
Gregory. This last work was translated into Latin by Scotus
Erigena at the request of Charles the Bald. The polemical
writings include short treatises against the Monophysites, and a
more important series against the Monothelites, beside which
must be placed the letters and the disputation with Pyrrhus. The
numerous ascetical writings have always received great honour in
Eastern monasteries. The best known is a beautiful dialogue
between an abbot and a young monk on the spiritual life; there
are also various collections of sententiae, ethical and
devotional, for use in the cloister. The "Mystagogia" is an
explanation of ecclesiastical symbolism, of importance for
liturgical history. Three hymns are preserved, and a
chronological work (published in Petavius's "Uranologium",
Paris, 1630, and in P. G., XIX). Some writings exist only in MS.
St. Maximus's literary labours had thus a vast range. He was
essentially a monk, a contemplative, a mystic, thoroughly at
home in the Platonism of Dionysius. But he was also a keen
dialectician, a scholastic theologian, a controversialist. His
influence in both lines has been very great. His main teaching
may be summed up under two heads, the union of God with humanity
by the Incarnation, and the union of man with God by the
practice of perfection and contemplation. St. Maximus is
commemorated in the Roman Martyrology on 13 August, and in the
Greek Menaea on 21 January and 12 and 13 August. His Greek
office is given by Combefis (P. G., XC, 206).
A complete edition of his works was begun by the Dominican
Combefis. Two volumes appeared (Paris 1675), but the third is
wanting In the reprint by Migne (P. G., XC-XCI) there is added
the "De Locis difficilibus Dionysii et Gregorii", from Oehler's
edition (Halle, 1857), and the hymns from Daniel "Thesaurus
Hymnolog." III. Anastasius Bibliothecarius has preserved some
letters and other documents in Latin in his "Collectanea" (P.
L., CXXIX, and Mansi, X). The "Scholia" on Dionysius the
Areopagite are printed with the works of the latter (P. G., IV).
The ancient "Vita et certamen" (P. G., XC- Acta SS., 13 Aug.) is
not contemporary and cannot be trusted.
JOHN CHAPMAN
St. Maximus of Turin
St. Maximus of Turin
Bishop and theological writer, b. probably in Rhaetia, about
380; d. shortly after 465. Only two dates are historically
established in his life. In 451 he was at the synod of Milan
where the bishops of Northern Italy accepted the celebrated
letter (epistola dogmatica) of Leo I, setting forth the orthodox
doctrine of the Incarnation against the Nestorians and
Eutychians (Mansi, "SS. Conc. Coll. Ampl.", VI, 143). Among
nineteen subscribers Maximus is the eighth, and since the order
was determined by age, Maximus must then have been about seventy
years old. The second established date is 465, when he was at
the Synod of Rome. (Mansi, VII, 959, 965 sq.) Here the
subscription of Maximus follows immediately after the pope's,
showing he was the oldest of the forty-eight bishops present.
The approximate time and place of his birth may be surmised from
a passage in Sermo 81 (P.L., LVII, 695), where he designates
himself as a witness of the martyrdom of three missionary
priests in 397 at Anaunia in the Rhaetian Alps. History does not
mention him after 465. He is the first known bishop of Turin,
then a suffragan see of Milan. His successor was St. Victor. His
name is in the Roman martyrology on 25 June, and the city of
Turin honours him as its patron. A life which, however, is
entirely unreliable, was written after the eleventh century, and
is printed in "Acta SS.", June, VII, 3rd ed., 44-46. It states
that a cleric one day followed him with an evil intention to a
retired chapel, where the saint was wont to pray. The cleric
suddenly became so thirsty that he implored Maximus for help. A
roe happened to pass which the saint caused to stop, so that the
cleric could partake of its milk. This legend accounts for the
fact that St. Maximus is represented in art as pointing at a
roe.
He is the author of numerous discourses, first edited by Bruni,
and published by order of Pius VI at the Propaganda in 1784
(reprinted in P.L., LVII). These discourses, delivered to the
people by the saint, consist of one hundred and eighteen
homilies, one hundred and sixteen sermons, and six treatises
(tractatus). Homilies 1-63 are de tempore, i.e. on the seasons
of the ecclesiastical year and on the feasts of Our Lord; 64-82,
de sanctis, i.e. on the saints whose feast was commemorated on
the day on which they were delivered; 83-118, de diversis, i.e.
exegetical, dogmatical or moral. Sermons 1-55 are de tempore;
56-93, de sanctis; 93-116, de diversis. Three of the treatises
are on baptism, one against the Pagans, and one against the
Jews. The last two are extant only in fragments, and their
genuineness is doubtful. The sixth treatise, whose genuineness
is also doubtful, contains short discourses on twenty-three
topics taken from the Four Gospels. An appendix contains
writings of uncertain authorship; thirty-one sermons, three
homilies, and two long epistles addressed to a sick friend. Many
writings, however, which Bruni ascribes to Maximus are of
doubtful origin. The discourses are usually very brief, and
couched in forcible, though at times over flowery language.
Among the many facts of liturgy and history touched on in the
discourses are: abstinence during Lent (hom. 44), no fasting or
kneeling at prayers during paschal time (hom. 61), fasting on
the Vigil of Pentecost (hom. 62), the synod of Milan in 389 at
which Jovinianus was condemned (hom. 9), the impending barbarian
invasion (hom. 86-92), the destruction of the Church of Milan by
the barbarians (hom. 94), various pagan superstitions still
prevalent at his time (hom. 16, 100-02), the supremacy of St.
Peter (hom. 54, 70, 72, serm. 114). All his discourses manifest
his solicitude for the eternal welfare of his flock, and in many
he fearlessly rebukes the survivals of paganism and defends the
orthodox faith against the inroads of heresy.
Ferreri, S. Massimo, vescovo di Torino e i suoi tempi (3rd ed.,
Turin, 1868); Savio, Gli antichi vescovi d'Italia (Turin, 1899),
283-294; Fessler-Jungmann, Institutiones Patrologiae, II
(Innsbruck, 1892), ii, 256-76; Argles in Dict. Christ. Biog., s.
v. Maximus (I6); Bardenhewer, Patrology, tr. Shahan (St. Louis,
1908), 527-8.
MICHAEL OTT
William Maxwell
William Maxwell
Fifth Earl of Nithsdale (Lord Nithsdale signed as Nithsdaill)
and fourteenth Lord Maxwell, b. in 1676; d. at Rome, 2 March,
1744. He succeeded his father at the early age of seven. His
mother, a daughter of the House of Douglas, a clever energetic
woman, educated him in sentiments of devotion to the Catholic
faith and of loyalty to the House of Stuart, for which his
family was famous. When he was about twenty-three, Lord
Nithsdale visited the French Court to do homage to King James,
and there met and wooed Lady Winifred Herbert, youngest daughter
of William, first Marquis of Powis. The marriage contract is
dated 2 March, 1699. The young couple resided chiefly at
Terregles, in Dumfriesshire, and here probably their five
children were born. Until I715 no special event marked their
lives, but in that year Lord Nithsdale's principles led him to
join the rising in favour of Prince James Stuart, and he shared
in the disasters which attended the royal cause, being taken
prisoner at Preston and sent to the Tower. In deep anxiety Lady
Nithsdale hastened to London and there made every effort on
behalf of her husband, including a personal appeal to George I,
but no sort of hope was held out to her. She, therefore, with
true heroism, planned and carried out his escape on the eve of
the day fixed for his execution. Lord Nithsdale had prepared
himself for death like a good Catholic and loyal servant of his
king, as his "Dying Speech" and farewell letter to his family
attest. After his escape he fled in disguise to France. He and
Lady Nithsdale spent their last years in great poverty, in Rome,
in attendance on their exiled king.
M.M. MAXWELL SCOTT
Winifred Maxwell
Winifred Maxwell
Countess of Nithsdale, d. at Rome, May, 1749. She was the
daughter of William, first Marquis of Powis, who followed James
II into exile. She is famous in history for the heroic
deliverance of her husband from the Tower on 23 Feb., 1716. Her
married life was passed chiefly at the family seat of Terregles,
and here she received the fatal news of her husband's defeat at
Preston. After concealing the family papers in a spot still
pointed out, she hastened to London to intercede for her
husband, having little hope however, for, to use her own words:
"A Catholic upon the borders and one who had a great following
and whose family had ever upon all occasions stuck to the royal
family, could not look for mercy". And so it proved; even her
personal appeal to George I was disregarded, and Lord Nithsdale
was to owe his safety to her alone. With great courage and
ingenuity she contrived his escape from the Tower in female
dress -- on the eve of the day appointed for his execution,
according to Lady Cowper's "Diary," 1st ed., p. 85, a reprieve
was signed for Lord Nithsdale on the very night of his escape --
and after concealing him in London and arranging for his journey
to France, this heroic lady returned again to Scotland to secure
the family papers which she knew would be of vital importance to
her son. In fact her zeal made Lady Nithsdale's position a
hazardous one, and King George declared she had done him "more
mischief than any woman in Christendom". As soon as she was able
she joined Lord Nithsdale abroad and they spent their long exile
in Rome, where she survived her husband for about five years.
The autograph letter in which Lady Nithsdale gives the account
of her husband's escape, and the brown cloak worn by him on the
occasion, are now in possession of the Duchess of Norfolk, who
represents the Nithsdales in the female line.
FRASER, Book of Caerlareroch (Edinburgh, 1873); PAUL, The Scots
Peerage (Edinburgh, 1909), VI; MAXWELL SCOTT, The Making of
Abbotsford and Incidents in Scottish History (London, 1897).
M.M. MAXWELL SCOTT
Maya Indians
Maya Indians
The most important of the cultured native peoples of North
America, both in the degree of their civilization and in
population and resources, formerly occupying a territory of
about 60,000 square miles, including the whole of the peninsula
of Yucatan, Southern Mexico, together with the adjacent portion
of Northern Guatemala, and still constituting the principal
population of the same region outside of the larger cities.
Their language, which is actually supplanting Spanish to a great
extent, is still spoken by about 300,000 persons, of whom
two-thirds are pure Maya, the remainder being whites and of
mixed blood. The Mayan linguistic stock includes some twenty
tribes, speaking closely related dialects, and (excepting the
Huastec of northern Vera Cruz and south-east San Luis Potosi,
Mexico) occupying contiguous territory in Tabasco, Chiapas, and
the Yucatan peninsula, a large part of Guatemala, and smaller
portion of Honduras and Salvador. The ancient builders of the
ruined cities of Palenque and Copan were of the same stock. The
most important tribes or nations, after the Maya proper, were
the Quiche and Cakchiquel of Guatemala. All the tribes of this
stock were of high culture, the Mayan civilization being the
most advanced and probably the most ancient, in aboriginal North
America. They still number altogether about two million souls.
I. HISTORY
The Maya proper seem to have entered Yucatan from the west. As
usual with ancient nations, it is difficult in the beginning to
separate myth from history, their earliest mentioned leader and
deified hero, Itzamna, being considered by Brinton to be simply
the sun-god common to the whole Mayan stock. He is represented
as having led the first migration from the Far East, beyond the
ocean, along a pathway miraculously opened through the waters.
The second migration, which seems to have been historic, was led
from the west by Kukulcan, a miraculous priest and teacher, who
became the founder of the Maya kingdom and civilization. Fairly
good authority, based upon study of the Maya chronicles and
calendar, places this beginning near the close of the second
century of the Christian Era. Under Kukulcan the people were
divided into four tribes, ruled by as many kingly families: the
Cocom, Tutul-xiu, Itza and Chele. To the first family belonged
Kukulcan himself, who established his residence at Mayapan,
which thus became the capital of the whole nation. The Tutul-xiu
held vassal rule at Uxmal, the Itza at Chichen-Itza, and the
Chele at Izamal. To the Chele was appointed the hereditary high
priesthood, and their city became the sacred city of the Maya.
Each provincial king was obliged to spend a part of each year
with the monarch at Mayapan. This condition continued down to
about the eleventh century, when, as the result of a successful
revolt of the provincial kings, Mayapan was destroyed, and the
supreme rule passed to the Tutul-xiu at Uxmal. Later on Mayapan
was rebuilt and was again the capital of the nation until about
the middle of the fifteenth century, when, in consequence of a
general revolt against the reigning dynasty, it was finally
destroyed, and the monarchy was split up into a number of
independent petty states, of which eighteen existed on the
peninsula at the arrival of the Spaniards. In consequence of
this civil war a part of the Itza emigrated south to Lake Peten,
in Guatemala, where they established a kingdom with their
capital and sacred city of Flores Island, in the lake.
On his second voyage Columbus heard of Yucatan as a distant
country of clothed men. On his fifth voyage (1503-04) he
encountered, south-west of Cuba, a canoe-load of Indians with
cotton clothing for barter, who said that they came from the
country of Maya. In 1506 Pinzon sighted the coast, and in 1511
twenty men under Valdivia were wrecked on the shores of the
sacred island of Cozumel, several being captured and sacrificed
to the idols. In 1517 an expedition under Francisco de Cordova
landed on the north coast, discovering well-built cities, but,
after several bloody engagements with the natives, was compelled
to retire. Father Alonso Gonzalez, who accompanied this
expedition, found opportunity at one landing to explore a
temple, and bring off some of the sacred images and gold
ornaments. In 1518 a strong expedition under Juan de Grijalva,
from Cuba, landed near Cozumel and took formal possession for
Spain. For Father Juan Diaz, who on this occasion celebrated
Mass upon the summit of one of the heathen temples, the honour
is also claimed of having afterwards been the first to celebrate
mass in the City of Mexico. Near Cozumel, also, was rescued the
young monk Aguilar, one of the two survivors of Valdivia's
party, who, though naked to the breech-cloth, still carried his
Breviary in a pouch. Proceeding northwards, Grijaba made the
entire circuit of the peninsula before returning, having had
another desperate engagement with the Maya near Campeche. After
the conquest of Mexico in 1521, Francisco de Montejo, under
commission as Governor of Yucatan, landed (1527) to effect the
conquest of the country, but met with such desperate resistance
that after eight years of incessant fighting every Spaniard had
been driven out. In 1540, after two more years of the same
desperate warfare, his son Francisco established the first
Spanish settlement at Campeche. In the next year, in a bloody
battle at Tihoo, he completely broke the power of Maya
resistance, and a few months later (Jan., 1542) founded on the
site of the ruined city the new capital, Merida. In 1546,
however, there was a general revolt, and it was not until a year
later that the conquest was assured.
In the original commission to Montejo it had been expressly
stipulated that missionaries should accompany all his
expeditions. This, however, he had neglected to attend to, and
in 1531 (or 1534), by special order, Father Jacobo de Testera
and four others were sent to join the Spanish camp near
Campeche. They met a kindly welcome from the Indians, who came
with their children to be instructed, and thus the conquest of
the country might have been effected through spiritual agencies
but for the outrages committed by a band of Spanish outlaws, in
consequence of which the priests were forced to withdraw. In
1537 five more missionaries arrived and met the same willing
reception, remaining about two years in spite of the war still
in progress. About 1545 a large number of missionaries were sent
over from Spain. Several of these--apparently nine, all
Franciscans--under the direction of Father Luis de Villalpando,
were assigned to Yucatan. Landing at Campeche, the governor
explained their purpose to the chiefs, the convent of St.
Francis was dedicated on its present site, and translations were
begun into the native language. The first baptized convert was
the chief of Campeche, who learned Spanish and thereafter acted
as interpreter for the priests.
Here, as elsewhere, the missionaries were the champions of the
rights of the Indians. In consequence of their repeated protests
a royal edict was issued, in 1549, prohibiting Indian slavery in
the province, while promising compensation to the slave owners.
As in other cases, local opposition defeated the purpose of this
law; but the agitation went on, and in 1551 another royal edict
liberated 150,000 male Indian slaves, with their families,
throughout Mexico. In 1557 and 1558 the Crown intervened to
restrain the tyranny of the native chiefs. Within a very short
time Father Villalpando had at his mission station at Merida
over a thousand converts, including several chiefs. He himself,
with Father Malchior de Benavente, then set out, barefoot, for
the city of Mani in the mountains farther south, where their
success was so great that two thousand converts were soon
engaged in building them a church and dwelling. All went well
until they began to plead with the chiefs to release their
vassals from certain hard conditions, when the chiefs resolved
to burn them at the altar. On the appointed night the chiefs and
their retainers approached the church with this design, but were
awed from their purpose on finding the two priests, who had been
warned by an Indian boy, calmly praying before the crucifix.
After remaining all night in prayer, the fathers were
fortunately rescued by a Spanish detachment which, almost
miraculously, chanced to pass that way. Twenty-seven of the
conspirators were afterwards seized and condemned to death, but
were all saved by the interposition of Villalpando. In 1548-49
other missionaries arrived from Spain, Villalpando was made
custodian of the province, and a convent was erected near the
site of his chapel at Mani. The Yucatan field having been
assigned to the Franciscans, all the missionary work among the
Maya was done by priests of that order.
In 1561 Yucatan was made a diocese with its see at Merida. In
the next year the famous Diego de Landa, Franciscan provincial,
and afterwards bishop (1573-79), becoming aware that the natives
throughout the peninsula still secretly cherished their ancient
rites, instituted an investigation, which he conducted with such
cruelties of torture and death that the proceedings were stopped
by order of Bishop Toral Franciscan provincial of Mexico,
immediately upon his arrival, during the same summer, to occupy
the See of Merida. Before this could be done, however, there had
been destroyed, as is asserted, two million sacred images and
hundreds of hieroglyphic manuscripts--practically the whole of
the voluminous native Maya literature. As late as 1586 a royal
edict was issued for the suppression of idolatry. In 1575-77 a
terrible visitation of a mysterious disease, called
matlalzahuatl, which attacked only the Indians, swept over
Southern Mexico and Yucatan, destroying, as was estimated, over
two million lives. This was its fourth appearance since the
conquest. At its close it was estimated that the whole Indian
population of Mexico had been reduced to about 1,700,000 souls.
In 1583 and 1597 there were local revolts under chiefs of the
ancient Cocom royal family. By this latter date it was estimated
that the native population of Mexico had declined by
three-fourths since the discovery, through massacre, famine,
disease, and oppression. Up to 1593 over 150 Franciscan monks
had been engaged in missionary work in Yucatan.
The Maya history of the seventeenth century is chiefly one of
revolts, viz., 1610-33, 1636-44, 1653, 1669, 1670, and about
1675. Of all these, that of 1636-44 was the most extensive and
serious, resulting in a temporary revival of the old heathen
rites. In 1697 the island capital of the Itza, in Lake Peten,
Guatemala, was stormed by Governor Martin de Ursua, and with it
fell the last stronghold of the independent Maya. Here, also,
the manuscripts discovered were destroyed. In 1728 Bishop Juan
Gomez Parada died, beloved by the Indians for the laws which he
had procured mitigating the harshness of their servitude. The
reimposition of the former hard conditions brought about another
revolt in 1761, led by the chief Jacinto Canek, and ending, as
usual, in the defeat of the Indians, the destruction of their
chief stronghold, and the death of their leader under horrible
torture.
In 1847, taking advantage of the Government's difficulties with
the United States, and urged on by their "unappeasable hatred
toward their ruler from the earliest time of the Spanish
conquest", the Maya again broke out in general rebellion, with
the declared purpose of driving all the whites, half-breeds and
negroes from the peninsula, in which they were so far successful
that all the fugitives who escaped the wholesale massacres fled
to the coast, whence most of them were taken off by ships from
Cuba. Arms and ammunition for the rising were freely supplied to
the Indians by the British traders of Belize. In 1851 the rebel
Maya established their headquarters at Chan-Santa-Cruz in the
eastern part of the peninsula. In 1853 it seemed as if a
temporary understanding had been reached, but next year
hostilities began again. Two expeditions against the Maya
stronghold were repulsed, Valladolid was besieged by the
Indians, Yecax taken, and more than two thousand whites
massacred. In 1860 the Mexican Colonel Acereto, with 3,000 men
occupied Chan-Santa-Cruz, but was finally compelled to retire
with the loss of 1,500 men killed, and to abandon his
wounded--who were all butchered--as well as his artillery and
supplies and all but a few hundred stand of small arms. The
Indians burned and ravaged in every direction, nineteen
flourishing towns being entirely wiped out, and the population
in three districts being reduced from 97,000 to 35,000. The war
of extermination continued, with savage atrocities, through
1864, when it gradually wore itself out, leaving the Indians
still unsubdued and well supplied with arms and munitions of war
from Belize. In 1868 it broke out again in resistance to the
Juarez government. In 1871 a Mexican force again occupied
Chan-Santa-Cruz, but retired without producing any permanent
result. In 1901, after long preparation, a strong Mexican force
invaded the territory of the independent Maya both by land and
sea, stormed Chan-Santa-Cruz and, after determined resistance,
drove the defenders into the swamps. The end is not yet,
however, for, even in this year of 1910, Mexican troops are in
the field to put down a serious rising in the northern part of
the peninsula.
II. INSTITUTIONS, ARTS, AND LITERATURE
Under the ancient system, the Maya Government was an hereditary
absolute monarchy, with a close union of the spiritual and
temporal elements, the hereditary high priest, who was also king
of the sacred city of Izamal, being consulted by the monarch on
all important matters, besides having the care of ritual and
ceremonials. On public occasions the king appeared dressed in
flowing white robes, decorated with gold and precious stones,
wearing on his head a golden circlet decorated with the
beautiful quetzal plumes reserved for royalty, and borne upon a
canopied palanquin. The provincial governors were nobles of the
four royal families, and were supreme within their own
governments. The rulers of towns and villages formed a lower
order of nobility, not of royal blood. The king usually acted on
the advice of a council of lords and priests. The lords alone
were military commanders, and each lord and inferior official
had for his support the produce of a certain portion of land
which was cultivated in common by the people. They received no
salary, and each was responsible for the maintenance of the poor
and helpless of his district. The lower priesthood was not
hereditary, but was appointed through the high priest. There was
also a female priesthood, or vestal order, whose head was a
princess of royal blood. The plebeians were farmers, artisans,
or merchants; they paid taxes and military service, and each had
his interest in the common land as well as his individual
portion, which descended in the family and could not be
alienated. Slaves also existed, the slaves being chiefly
prisoners of war and their children, the latter of whom could
become freemen by putting a new piece of unoccupied ground under
cultivation. Society was organized upon the clan system, with
descent in the male line, the chiefs being rather custodians for
the tribe than owners, and having no power to alienate the
tribal lands. Game, fish, and the salt marshes were free to all,
with a certain portion to the lords. Taxes were paid in kind
through authorized collectors. On the death of the owner, the
property was divided equally among his nearest male heirs.
The more important cases were tried by a royal council presided
over by the king, and lesser cases by the provincial rulers or
local judges, according to their importance, usually with the
assistance of a council and with an advocate for the defense.
Crimes were punished with death--frequently by throwing over a
precipice-- enslavement, fines, or rarely, by imprisonment. The
code was merciful, and even murder could sometimes be compounded
by a fine. Children were subject to parents until of an age to
marry, which for boys was about twenty. The children of the
common people were trained only in the occupation of their
parents, but those of the nobility were highly educated, under
the care of the priests, in writing, music, history, war, and
religion. The daughters of nobles were strictly secluded, and
the older boys in each village lived and slept apart in a public
building. Birthdays and other anniversaries were the occasions
of family feasts.
Marriage between persons of the same gen was forbidden, and
those who violated this law were regarded as outcasts. Marriage
within certain other degrees of relationship--as with the sister
of a deceased wife, or with a mother's sister--was also
prohibited. Polygamy was unknown, but concubinage was permitted,
and divorce was easy. Marriages were performed by the priests,
with much ceremonial rejoicing, and preceded by a solemn
confession and a baptismal rite, known as the "rebirth", without
which there could be no marriage. No one could marry out of his
own rank or without the consent of the chief of the district.
Religious ritual was elaborate and imposing, with frequent
festival occasions in honour of the gods of the winds, the rain,
the cardinal points, the harvest, of birth, death, and war, with
special honours to the deified national heroes Itzamna and
Kukulcan. The whole country was dotted with temples, usually
great stone-built pyramids, while certain places--as the sacred
city of Izamal and the island of Cozumel--were places of
pilgrimage. There was a special "feast of all the gods". The
prevailing mildness of the Maya cult was in strong contrast to
the bloody ritual of the Aztec. Human sacrifice was forbidden by
Kukulcan, and crept in only in later years. It was never a
frequent or prominent feature, excepting at Chichen-Itza, where
it at least became customary, on occasion of some great national
crisis, to sacrifice hundreds of voluntary victims of their own
race, frequently virgins, by drowning them in one of the
subterranean rock wells or cenotes, after which the bodies were
drawn out and buried.
The Maya farmer cultivated corn, beans, cacao, chile, maguey,
bananas, and cotton, besides giving attention to bees, from
which he obtained both honey and wax. Various fermented drinks
were prepared from corn, maguey, and honey. They were much given
to drunkenness, which was so common as hardly to be considered
disgraceful. Chocolate was the favourite drink of the upper
classes. Cacao beans, as well as pieces of copper, were a common
medium of exchange. Very little meat was eaten, except at
ceremonial feasts, although the Maya were expert hunters and
fishers. A small "barkless" dog was also eaten. The ordinary
garment of men was a cotton breechcloth wrapped around the
middle, with sometimes a sleeveless shirt, either white or dyed
in colors. The women wore a skirt belted at the waist, and
plaited their hair in long tresses. Sandals were worn by both
sexes. Tattooing and head-flattening were occasionally
practised, and the face and body were always painted. The Maya,
then as now, were noted for personal neatness and frequent use
of both cold and hot baths. They were expert and determined
warriors, using the bow and arrow, the dart with throwing-stick,
the wooden sword edged with flints, the lance, sling, copper
axe, shield of reeds, and protective armour of heavy quilted
cotton. They understood military tactics and signalling with
drum and whistle, and knew how to build barricades and dig
trenches. Noble prisoners were usually sacrificed to the gods,
while those of ordinary rank became slaves. Their object in war
was rather to make prisoners than to kill. As the peninsula had
no mines, the Maya were without iron or any metal excepting a
few copper utensils and gold ornaments imported from other
countries. Their tools were almost entirely of flint or other
stone, even for the most intricate monumental carving. For
household purposes they used clay pottery, dishes of shell, or
gourds. Their pottery was of notable excellence, as were also
their weaving, dyeing, and feather work. Along the coast they
had wooden dugout canoes capable of holding fifty persons.
They had a voluminous literature, covering the whole range of
native interests either written, in their own peculiar
"calculiform" hieroglyphic characters, in books of maguey paper
or parchment which were bound in word, or carved upon the walls
of their public buildings. Twenty-seven parchment books were
publicly destroyed by Bishop Landa at Mani in 1562, others
elsewhere in the peninsula, others again at the storming of the
Itza capital in 1697, and almost all that have come down to us
are four codices, as they are called, viz., the "Codex Troano",
published at Paris in 1869; another codex apparently connected
with the first published at Paris in 1882; the "Codex
Peresianus", published at Paris in 1869-71; and the "Dresden
Codex", originally mistakenly published as an Aztec book in
Kingsborough's great work on the "Antiquities of Mexico"
(London, 1830-48). Besides these pre-Spanish writings, of which
there is yet no adequate interpretation, we have a number of
later works written in the native language by Christianized
Maya, shortly after the conquest. Several of these have been
brought together by Brinton in his "Maya Chronicles". The
intricate calendar system of the Maya, which exceeded in
elaboration that of the Aztec, Zapotec, or any other of the
cultured native races, has been the subject of much discussion.
It was based on a series of katuns, or cycles, consisting of 20
(or 24), 52, and 260 years, and by its means they carried their
history down for possibly thirteen centuries, the completion of
each lesser katun being noted by the insertion of a memorial
stone in the wall of the great temple at Mayapan.
The art in which above all the Maya excelled, and through which
they are best known, is architecture. The splendid ruins of
temples, pyramids, and great cities--some of which were intact
and occupied at the time of the conquest--scattered by scores
and hundreds throughout the forests of Yucatan, have been the
wonder and admiration of travellers for over half a century,
since they were first brought prominently to notice by Stephens.
Says Brinton: "The material was usually a hard limestone, which
was polished and carved, and imbedded in a firm mortar. Such was
also the character of the edifices of the Quiches and
Cakchiquels of Guatemala. In view of the fact that none of these
masons knew the plumb-line or the square, the accuracy of the
adjustments is remarkable. Their efforts at sculpture were
equally bold. They did not hesitate to attempt statues in the
round of life size and larger, and the fac,ades of the edifices
were covered with extensive and intricate designs cut in high
relief upon the stones. All this was accomplished without the
use of metal tools, as they did not have even the bronze chisels
familiar to the Aztecs." The interior walls were also frequently
covered with hieroglyphic inscriptions carved in the stone or
wood, or painted upon the plaster. Among the most noted of the
Maya ruins are those of Palenque (in Chiapas), Uxmal,
Chichen-Itza, and Maypan.
The Maya language has received much attention from missionaries
and scientists from an early period. Of grammars the earliest is
the "Arte y Vocabulario de la lengua de Yucatan" of Luis de
Villalpando, published about 1555. Others of note are "Arte de
la Lengua Maya" by Father Gabriel San Buenaventura (Mexico,
1684), and republished by the Abbe Brasseur de Bourbourg in
volume two of the "Mission Scientifique au Mexique" (Paris,
1870); "Arte de el Idioma Maya" by Father Padro de Santa Rosa
Maria Beltran, a native of Yucatan and instructor in the Maya
language in the Franciscan convent of Merida (Mexico, 1746, and
Merida, 1859); "Gramatica Yucateca" by Father Joaquin Ruz, of
the Franciscan convent of Merida, also a native of Yucatan and
"the most fluent of the writers in the Maya language that
Yucatan has produced" (Merida, 1844), and republished in an
English translation by the Baptist missionary, Rev. John Kingdom
(Belize, 1847). Each of these writers was also the author of
other works in the language.
Of published dictionaries may be mentioned: first and earliest,
a "Diccionario", credited to Father Villalpando (Mexico, 1571);
then "Diccionario de la Lengua Maya", by Juan Perez (Merida,
1866-77); and "Dictionnaire, Grammaire at Chrestomathie de la
langue Maya", by the Abbe Brasseur de Bourgourg (Paris, 1872).
The most valuable dictionaries of the language are still in
manuscript. Chief is the one known as the Diccionario del
Convento de Motul" from the name of the Franciscan convent in
Yucatan in which it was found; it is now in the Carter Brown
Library at Providence. It is beautifully written and is supposed
to be a copy of an original written by a Franciscan priest, who
was evidently a master of the language, about 1590. "In extent
the dictionary is not surpassed by that of any aboriginal
language of America" (Bartlett). Other manuscript dictionaries
are those of the Convent of Merida (about 1640); and one by the
Convent of Ticul (about 1690); and one by the Rev. Alexander
Henderson, a Methodist missionary of Belize (1859-66), now the
property of the Bureau of American Ethnology. (See also Brinton,
"Maya Chronicles", and Maya titles in Pilling, "Bibliography,
Proofsheets" (Washington, 1885).)
Physically, the Maya are dark, short, muscular, and
broad-headed. Intellectually, they are alert, straight-forward,
reliable, of a cheerful disposition, and neat and orderly
habits. Their wars with Mexico have been waged, however, with
the utmost savagery, the provocation being as great on the other
side. Their daily life differs little from that of the ordinary
Mexican peasant, their ordinary dwellings being thatched huts,
their dress the common white shirt and trousers, with sandals
and straw hat, for men, and for women white embroidered skirt
and sleeveless gown. They cultivate the ordinary products of the
region, including sugar and hennequin hemp, while the
independent bands give considerable attention to hunting. While
they are all now Catholics, with resident priests in all the
towns, that fact in no way softens their animosity toward the
conquering race. They still keep up many of their ancient rites,
particularly those relating to the planting and harvesting of
the crops. Many of these survivals are described by Brinton in a
chapter of his "Essays of an Americanist". The best recent
account (1894) of the independent Maya is that of the German
traveler Sapper, who praises in the highest terms their honesty,
punctuality, hospitality, and peaceful family life. A
translation of it is given in the Bowditch collection. At that
time the Mexican government officially recognized three
independent Maya states, or tribes in Southern and Eastern
Yucatan, the most important being the hostiles of the
Chan-Santa-Cruz district, estimated at not more than 10,000
souls as against about 40,000 at the outbreak of the rebellion
of 1847. The other two bands together numbered perhaps as many,
having decreased in about the same ratio.
JAMES MOONEY
Christian Mayer
Christian Mayer
Moravian astronomer, born at Mederizenhi in Moravia, 20 Aug.,
1719, died at Heidelberg, 16 April, 1783. He entered the Society
of Jesus at Mannheim on 26 Sept., 1745, and after completing his
studies taught the humanities for some tirne at Aschaffenburg.
He likewise cultivated his taste for mathematics, and later was
appointed professor of mathematics and physics in the University
of Heidelberg. In 1755 he was invited by the Elector Palatine
Charles Theodore to construct and take charge of astronomical
observatory at Mannheim. Here as well as at Schwetzingen, where
he had also built an observatory, he carried on his observations
which led to numerous memoirs, some of which were published in
the "Philosophical Transactions" of London. One of his
observations, recorded in the "Tables d'aberration et de
mutation" (Mannheim, 1778) of his assistant Mesge, gave rise to
much discussion. He claimed to have discovered that many of the
more conspicuous stars in the southern heavens were surrounded
by smaller stars, which he regarded as satellites. His
contemporaries, including Herschel and Schroeter, who were
provided with much more powerful telescopes, failed to verify
his observations. Mayer, however, defended their reality and
replied to one of his critics, the well-known astronomer Father
Hoell, in a work entitled "Gruendliche Vertheidigung neuer
Beubachtungen von Fixstern-trabanten welche zu Mannheim auf der
kurfuerstl. Sternwarte endecket wordern sind", (Mannheim, 1778).
In the following year he published a Latin work on the same
subject. The observations, which were made in good faith, were
evidently due to an optical illusion. Mayer spent some time at
Paris in the interests of his science, and visited Germany in
company with Cassini. Upon the invitation of Empress Catherine
of Russia, he went to St. Petersburg to observe the transit of
Venus in 1769. He was a member of numerous learned societies,
including those of Mannheim, Munich, London, Bologna Goettingen,
and Philadelphia. He published a number of memoirs, among which
may be mentioned "Basis Palatina" (Mannheim, 1763), "Expositio
de transitu Veneris" (St. Petersburg, 1769), "Pantometrum
Pacechianum, seu instrumentum novum pro elicienda ex una
statione distantia loci inaccessi" (Mannheim, 1762); "Nouvelle
methode pour lever en peu de temps et `a peu de frais une carte
generale et exacte de toute la Russie" (St. Petersburg, 1770);
"Observations de la Comete de 1781" in the "Acts Acad.
Petropolit." (1782), etc.
HENRY M. BROCK
Edward Mayhew
Edward Mayhew
Born in 1569; died 14 September, 1625. He belonged to the old
English family of Mayhew or Mayow of Winton, near Salisbury,
Wiltshire, which had endured much persecution for the Faith. On
10 July, 1583, he entered with his elder brother Henry, the
English College at Reims, where he displayed conspicuous
talents, and received the tonsure and minor orders on 22 August,
1590. Thence proceeding to Rome, he there continued his studies
until his ordination, after which he left for the English
missions in 1595. Having served for twelve years on the mission
as a secular priest, he joined the Benedictine Order, being
professed by Dom Sigelbert Buckley, the sole survivor of the
English congregation, in his cell at the Gatehouse prison,
Westminster, on 21 November 1607. The old English congregation
would thus have ended with Dom Buckley, had not Mayhez and other
secular priest, Father Robert Sadler, sought profession, thus
preserving its continuity to the present day. Under these two
new members the English congregation began to revive. Becoming
affiliated with the Spanish congregation in 1612, it was given
an equal share in St. Lawrence's monastery at Dieulwart,
Lorraine, henceforth the centre of the English congregation.
Retiring from the English mission in 1613, Mayhew took up his
residence at Dieulwart, where he filled the office of prior from
1613 to 1620. The union of the three congregations engaged on
the English missions had for some time been canvassed, in 1617
Mayhew was appointed one of the nine definitors to bring this
about. That of the English and Spanish congregations was
accomplished by the Apostolic Brief, "Ex incumbenti", of August,
1619, but the members of the Italian congregation refused to
become united. The zeal for the strict observance of the
Benedictine Rule, so characteristic of Dieulwart, was in great
part due to Mayhew's religious earnestness and strength of
character. From 1623 until his death he acted as vicar to the
nuns at Cambrai. His remains lie in the parish church at St.
Vedast. The most important of Mayhew's works are: "Sacra
Institutio Baptizandi etc." (Douai, 1604); "Treatise on the
Groundes of the Olde and Newe Religion etc." (s. l., 1608);
"Congregationis Anglicanae Ordinis S. Benedicti Trophaea" (2
vols., Reims, 1619, 1625).
THOMAS KENNEDY
Cuthbert Mayne
Blessed Cuthbert Mayne
Martyr, b. at Yorkston, near Barnstaple, Devonshire (baptized 20
March, 1543-4); d. at Launceston, Cornwall, 29 Nov., 1577. He
was the son of William Mayne; his uncle was a schismatical
priest, who had him educated at Barnstaple Grammar School, and
he was ordained a Protestant minister at the age of eighteen or
nineteen. He then went to Oxford, first to St. Alban's Hall,
then to St. John's College, where he took the degree of M.A. in
1570. He there made the acquaintance of Blessed Edmund Campion,
Gregory Martin, the controversialist, Humphrey Ely, Henry Shaw,
Thomas Bramston, O.S.B., Henry Holland, Jonas Meredith, Roland
Russell, and William Wiggs. The above list shows how strong a
Catholic leaven was still working at Oxford. Late in 1570 a
letter from Gregory Martin to Blessed Cuthbert fell into the
Bishop of London's hands. He at once sent a pursuivant to arrest
Blessed Cuthbert and others mentioned in the letter. Blessed
Cuthbert was in the country, and being warned by Blessed Thomas
Ford, he evaded arrest by going to Cornwall, whence he arrived
at Douai in 1573. Having become reconciled to the Church, he was
ordained in 1575; in Feb., 1575-6 he took the degree of S.T.B.
at Douai University; and on 24 April, 1576 he left for the
English mission in the company of Blessed John Payne. Blessed
Cuthbert took up his abode with the future confessor, Francis
Tregian, of Golden, in St. Probus's parish, Cornwall. This
gentleman suffered imprisonment and loss of possessions for this
honour done him by our martyr. At his house our martyr was
arrested 8 June, 1577, by the high sheriff, Grenville, who was
knighted for the capture. He was brought to trial in September;
meanwhile his imprisonment was of the harshest order. His
indictment under statutes of 1 and 13 Elizabeth was under five
counts: first, that he had obtained from the Roman See a
"faculty", containing absolution of the queen's subjects;
second, that he had published the same at Golden; third, that he
had taught the ecclesiastical authority of the pope in
Launceston Gaol; fourth, that he had brought into the kingdom an
Agnus Dei and had delivered the same to Mr. Tregian; fifth, that
he had said Mass.
As to the first and second counts, the martyr showed that the
supposed "faculty" was merely a copy printed at Douai of an
announcement of the Jubilee of 1575, and that its application
having expired with the end of the jubilee, he certainly had not
published it either at Golden or elsewhere. As to the third
count, he maintained that he had said nothing definite on the
subject to the three illiterate witnesses who asserted the
contrary. As to the fourth count, he urged that the fact that he
was wearing an Agnus Dei at the time of his arrest was no
evidence that he had brought it into the kingdom or delivered it
to Mr. Tregian. As to the fifth count, he contended that the
finding of a Missal, a chalice, and vestments in his room did
not prove that he had said Mass.
Nevertheless the jury found him guilty of high treason on all
counts, and he was sentenced accordingly. His execution was
delayed because one of the judges, Jeffries, altered his mind
after sentence and sent a report to the Privy Council. They
submitted the case to the whole Bench of Judges, which was
inclined to Jeffries's view. Nevertheless, for motives of
policy, the Council ordered the execution to proceed. On the
night of 27 November his cell was seen by the other prisoners to
be full of a strange bright light. The details of his martyrdom
must be sought in the works hereinafter cited. It is enough to
say that all agree that he was insensible, or almost so, when he
was disembowelled. A rough portrait of the martyr still exists;
and portions of his skull are in various places, the largest
being in the Carmelite Convent, Lanherne, Cornwall.
Camm, Lives of the English Martyrs, II (London, 1905), 204-222,
656; Pollen, Cardinal Allen's Briefe Historief (London, 1908),
104-110; Cooper in Dict. Nat. Biog., s. v.; Challoner, Memoirs
of Missionary Priests, I; Gillow, Bibl. Dict. Eng. Cath., s. v.;
Dasent, Acts of the Privy Council (London, 1890-1907), IX, 375,
390; X, 6, 7, 85.
John B. Wainwright
Maynooth College
Maynooth College
The National College of Saint Patrick, at Maynooth in County
Kildare, about twelve miles from Dublin, founded in the year
1795. Ireland at that date still had her own Parliament; and,
although Catholics could not sit in it, the spirit of toleration
and liberty which had swept over the United States and France
could not be excluded from its debates. Several relaxations had
already been granted in the application of the penal laws, and
it is to the credit of Irish Protestants that during their short
period of Parliamentary liberty (1782-1801), they could have
entered so heartily on the path of national brotherhood, and
have given to the world two such illustrious names as Edmund
Burke and Henry Grattan. It was to these two men, more than to
any statesmen of their time, that the foundation of Maynooth
College may be ascribed. Other circumstances were also
favourable. On the one hand, the programme of the "United
Irishmen" (1798) proclaimed the doctrine of universal toleration
and liberty of conscience. On the other hand, the British
Government was glad of an opportunity to withdraw young Irish
ecclesiastics as far as possible from the revolutionary
influences to which they were exposed on the Continent.
Moreover, soldiers were needed at a time when war was raging or
threatening on all sides, and it had become necessary to
conciliate the class from amongst whom the best Irish soldiers
could be recruited.
In 1794 a memorial was presented to the Irish viceroy by Dr.
Troy, Archbishop of Dublin, on behalf of all the Catholic
prelates of Ireland. This memorial set forth that the Roman
Catholic clergy of Ireland had never been charged with
disaffection to the State or irregularity in their conduct;
that, on the contrary, they had been complimented more than once
for inculcating obedience to the laws and veneration of His
Majesty's royal person and government. It was then pointed out
that the foreign colleges, in which about 400 students were
educated for the Irish mission, had been closed, and their funds
confiscated; and that, even had they remained open, it would no
longer be safe to send Irish students abroad, "lest they should
be contaminated with the contagion of sedition and infidelity"
and thus become the means of introducing into Ireland the
pernicious maxims of a licentious philosophy. The memorial was
favourably received, and, in the following year Mr. Pelham, the
Secretary of State, introduced his Bill for the foundation of a
Catholic college. The Bill passed rapidly through all its stages
and received the royal assent on 5 June, 1795. The management of
the institution was given to a Board of Trustees who were to
appoint all the officers, the president, masters, fellows, and
scholars, to fix their salaries and make all necessary by-laws,
rules, and statutes. No Catholic could act as trustee, or fill
any other office, or be admitted as a student, who did not first
take the oath of allegiance prescribed for Catholics in the
thirteenth and fourteenth years of George III. No Protestant or
son of a Protestant could be received in the new Academy under
the severest pains and penalties. The Lord Chancellor, however,
and several judges of the high courts, were to act as Trustees
ex officio. The endowment voted by Parliament was -L-8,000
(about $40,000) year. Dr. Thomas Hussey, a graduate of the Irish
College of Salamanca, who had long been chaplain to the Spanish
Embassy in London, was appointed first president. The next step
was to fix upon the site. At first Dublin, or the suburbs of
Dublin, seemed to offer the chief advantages; finally, however,
after a variety of proposals had been considered, Maynooth was
chosen, because it was considered favourable to the morals and
studies of a college; also, because the Duke of Leinster, who
had always been a friend of the Catholics, wished to have the
new institution on his estate. The money granted by Parliament
was voted for a Catholic college for the education of the Irish
clergy: that was the express intention of the Government, but,
as the Act was drawn in general terms, the trustees proceeded to
erect a college for laymen in connection with the ecclesiastical
establishment. This college was suppressed by the Government in
1801. Another lay college was then erected in the immediate
vicinity of the ecclesiastical college, and was continued up to
1817 under lay trustees. The establishment of various colleges
in other parts of the country for the education of laymen made
it unnecessary. Not long after the foundation of Maynooth, the
whole country being convulsed by the rebellion of 1798, the
general disturbance found an echo in the new institution. Of its
sixty-nine students no fewer than eighteen or twenty were
expelled for having taken the rebel oath.
A valuable endowment was obtained for the new college on the
death of John Butler, twelfth Baron Dunboyne, who had been
Bishop of Cork from 1763 to 1786. On the death of his nephew,
Pierce Butler, the eleventh baron, the bishop succeeded to the
title and estates. This temporal dignity, however, proved his
undoing; he gave up his bishopric, abjured the Catholic Faith,
and took a wife. In his last illness he repented and endeavoured
to make reparation for his conduct by willing his property in
Meath, valued at about -L-1,000 (about $5,000) a year, to the
newly founded college. The will was disputed at law by the next
of kin. The case of the college was pleaded by John Philpot
Curran, and a compromise was effected by which about one half of
the property was secured to the college. The income from the
bequest became the foundation of a fund for the maintenance of a
higher course of ecclesiastical studies in the case of such
students as should have distinguished themselves in the ordinary
course. This is still known as the "Dunboyne Establishment".
After the union with England the financial subsidy to Maynooth
from the State underwent various changes and gave rise to
debates of considerable acrimony in the House of Commons. In
1845, however, the government of Sir Robert Peel raised the
grant from -L-9,500 (about $47,500) to -L-26,000 ($230,000) a
year and placed on the consolidated fund, where it formed part
of the ordinary national debt and was free from annual
discussion on the estimates. Sir Robert Peel also granted a sum
of -L-30,000 (about $150,000) for suitable buildings; and it was
then that the Gothic structure designed by Pugin, one of the
handsomest college buildings in Europe, was erected. The
disestablishment of the Irish Church by Mr. Gladstone in 1869,
had serious financial results for Maynooth which was also
disendowed; but a sum of about -L-370,000 (about $1,850,000) was
given once for all to enable the college to continue its work.
This sum was invested for the most part in land, and has been
very ably managed by the trustees. Some of the most prominent
Catholic laymen in the country, such as the Earls of Fingall and
Kenmare, had acted as Trustees up to the date of the
disendowment; from that time no further lay trustees were
appointed.
Among the most distinguished of the past presidents of Maynooth
were Hussey, Renehan, and Russell, a full account of whom is to
be found the College History by the Most Rev. Dr. Heavy,
Archbishop of Tuam. Dr. Hussey was the first president, and to
his tact, judgment and skill the success of the original project
was mainly due. Dr. Renehan was a distinguished Irish scholar,
who did a great deal to rescue Irish manuscripts from
destruction. Dr. Russell is chiefly known for his "Life of
Cardinal Mezzofanti" and for the part he took in the conversion
of Cardinal Newman. Amongst the most distinguished teachers and
men of letters who shed lustre on the college during its first
century were John MacHale, Paul O'Brien, Daniel Murray, Edmond
O'Reilly, Nicholas Callan, Patrick Murray, Mathew Kelly, John
O'Hanlon, William Jennings, James O'Kane, and Gerald Molloy. It
is interesting to notice that, on the staff of the college in
its early years, were four French refugees--the Rev. Peter J.
Delort, the Rev. Andrew Darre, the Rev. Louis Delahogue and the
Rev. Francis Anglade--all Doctors of the Sorbonne. On the
original staff may also be found the name of the Rev. John C.
Eustace, author of the well-known "Classical Tour in Italy".
Amongst the distinguished personages who have visited the
college were Thackeray, Montalembert, Carlyle, Robert Owen,
Cardinal Perraud, Huxley, the late Empress of Austria, and King
Edward VII. The college possesses several memorials of the
Empress of Austria, who lived in the neighbourhood during her
visits to Ireland. The Centenary of the foundation of the
college was celebrated in 1895, on which occasion
congratulations were sent from all the Catholic educational
centres in the world. The college library contains upwards of
40,000 volumes. It possesses a great many rare and precious
works and some very valuable manuscripts. The Aula Maxima which
was opened about the year 1893 was the gift to his Alma Mater of
the Right Rev. Mgr. MacMahon of the Catholic University at
Washington, D. C., and previously of New York. The chapel which
has just been completed is a work of rare beauty both in design
and ornamentation. Maynooth has already sent out into the world
upwards of 7,000 priests. Her alumni are in all lands and in
almost every position that an ecclesiastic could occupy. The
average number of students in recent years is about 600. The
ordinary theological course is four years, and the extra course
of the "Dunboyne Establishment" three years more. Students in
arts and philosophy have to graduate in the National University
of which Maynooth is now a "recognized College".
HEALY, Maynooth College, Its Centenary History (Dublin, 1895);
Calendarium Collegii Sancti Patricii (Dublin); A Record of the
Centenary Celebration. . .Maynooth College (Dublin, 1895);
Cornwallis Correspondence: Memoirs of Viscount Castlereagh; Life
and Times of Henry Grattan; Hansard's Parliamentary Debates;
Correspondence of Edmund Burke; GLADSTONE, The State in its
Relation to the Church; HOGAN, Maynooth College and the Laity
(Dublin).
J.F. HOGAN
School of Mayo
School of Mayo
(Irish Magh Eo, which means, according to Colgan, the Plain of
the Oaks, and, according to O'Donovan, the Plain of the Yews).
The School of Mayo was situated in the present parish of Mayo,
County Mayo, almost equidistant from the towns of Claremorris
and Castlebar. The founder, St. Colman, who flourished about the
middle of the seventh century, was in all probability a native
of the West of Ireland, and made his ecclesiastical studies at
Iona during the abbacy of the renowned Segenius. After the death
of Finian, the second Bishop of Lindisfarne, Colman was
appointed to succeed him. His episcopate was much disturbed by a
fierce renewal of the Easter Controversy. Colman vigorously
advocated the old Irish custom, and cited the example of his
predecessors, but all to no effect. At a synod specially
summoned to meet at Whitby in 664, the Roman method of
calculation triumphed, and Colman, unwilling to abandon the
practice of the "holy elders of the Irish Church", resolved to
quit Lindisfarne forever.
In 668 he crossed the seas to his native land again, and in a
remote island on the western coast called Inishbofin, he built a
monastery and school. These things are clearly set out in the
"Historia Ecclesiastica" of Bede, who then proceeds to describe
how they led to the founding of the great school of Mayo.
"Colman, the Irish Bishop", says Bede, "departed from Britain
and took with him all the Irish that he had assembled in the
Island of Lindisfarne, and also about thirty of the English
nation who had been instructed in the monastic life. . .
.Afterwards he retired to a small island which is to the west of
Ireland, and at some distance from the coast, called in the
language of the Irish, Inishbofinde [island of the white cow].
Arriving there he built a monastery, and placed in it the monks
he brought with him of both nations".
It appears, however, the Irish and English monks could not
agree. "Then Colman sought to put an end to their dissensions,
and travelling about at length found a place in Ireland fit to
build a monastery, which in the language of the Irish is called
Magh Eo (Mayo)". Later on we are told by the same historian that
this monastery became an important and flourishing institution,
and even an episcopal see.
Though Colman, we may assume, lived mainly with his own
countrymen at Inishbofin, he took a deep and practical interest
in his new foundation at Mayo--"Mayo of the Saxons", as it came
to be called. In the year 670, with his consent, its first
canonical abbot was appointed. This was St. Gerald, the son of a
northern English king, who, annoyed at the way Colman's most
cherished convictions had been slighted at Whitby, resolved to
follow him to Ireland. The school gained greatly in fame for
sanctity and learning under this youthful abbot. About 679 St.
Adamnan, the illustrious biographer of St. Columba, visited Mayo
and according to some writers, ruled there for seven years after
Gerald's death. This latter statement is not, on the face of it,
improbable if Gerald, as Colgan thinks, did not live after 697;
but the Four Masters give the date of his death as 13 March,
726, and the "Annals of Ulster" put the event as late as 731.
After Gerald's death we have only the record of isolated facts
concerning the school he ruled so wisely and loved so well, but
they are often facts of considerable interest and importance. We
read, for example, that the monastery was burned in 783, and
again in 805; also--but only in the old Life of St. Gerald--that
it was plundered by Turgesius the Dane in 818. That the monastic
grounds were regarded as exceptionally holy we can gather from
the entry that Domhnall, son of Torlough O'Conor, Lord of North
Connacht, "the glory and the moderator and the good adviser of
the Irish people" (d. 1176), was interred therein. That it had
the status of an episcopal see long after the Synod of Kells
(1152), is clear from the entry under the date of 1209,
recording the death of "Cele O'Duffy, Bishop of Magh Eo of the
Saxons.".
Mayo, like the other ancient Irish monastic schools, suffered
from the raids of native and foreigner, especially during the
fourteenth century. But it survived them all, for the death
under date 1478 is recorded of a bishop--"Bishop Higgens of Mayo
of the Saxons". The time at which the See of Mayo, on the ground
that it contained not a cathedral but a parochial church, was
annexed to Tuam, cannot with certainty be ascertained, but as
far back as 1217, during the reign of Honorius III, the question
was before the Roman authorities for discussion. It was probably
not settled definitively for centuries after. James O'Healy,
"Bishop of Mayo of the Saxons", was put to death for the
Catholic Faith at Kilmallock in 1579.
BEDE, Historia Eccleiastica (London, 1907); COLGAN, Acta
Sanctorum Hiberniae (Louvain, 1645); O'HANLON, Lives of the
Irish Saints (Dublin, s.d.); HEALY, Ireland's Ancient Schools
and Scholars (5th ed., Dublin, 1906).
JOHN HEALY
Mayo Indians
Mayo Indians
An important tribe occupying some fifteen towns on Mayo and
Fuerte rivers, southern Sonora and northern Sinaloa, Mexico.
Their language is known as Cahita, being the same as that
spoken, with dialectic differences, by their neighbours, the
Tehueco, and Yaqui, and belonging to the Piman branch of the
great Shoshonean stock. The name Mayo is said by Ribas to be
properly that of their principal river and to signify
"boundary". The known history of the tribe begins in 1532 with
the naval expedition of Diego Hertado de Mendoza, who landing at
the mouth of the Fuerte, went up the river to the villages,
where he was killed with his companions while asleep. In 1533 a
land expedition under Diego de Guzman crossed through their
country and penetrated to beyond the Yaqui river in the north.
In 1609-10 they aided the Spaniards against the Yaqui, the two
tribes being hereditary enemies, and on the suppression of the
revolt, it was made a condition of the agreement that the Yaqui
should live at peace with the Mayo. In 1613, at their own
request, the first mission was established in their territory by
the Jesuit Father Pedro Mendez, who had visited them some years
before, over 3000 persons receiving baptism within fifteen days
in a population variously estimated at from nine to twenty
thousand. Within a short time seven mission churches was built
in as many towns of the tribe. This was the beginning of regular
mission work in Sonora.
In 1740 the Mayo, hitherto friendly as a tribe, joined the Yaqui
in revolt, apparently at the instance of Spanish officials
jealous of missionary influence. The churches were burned,
priests and settlers driven out of the country; and although the
rising w as put down in the following year after hard fighting,
it marked the beginning of the decline of the missions which
culminated with the expulsion of the Jesuits in 1767. After
their departure, the Indians were for some time without
religious teachers, but are now served by secular priests. In
1825-7, they again joined the Yaqui, led by the famous Bandera
(Juzucanea) in revolt against Mexican aggression, and have
several times since taken occasion to show their sympathies with
their fighting kinsmen. The Mayo are sedentary and industrious
farmers and mine labourers, and skillful artisans in the towns.
They cultivate corn, squash, beans, tobacco, cotton and maguey,
from which last they distill the mescal intoxicant. Their houses
are light structures of cane and poles, thatched with palm
leaves. They are all Catholic and very much Mexicanized, though
they retain their language, and have many of the old Indian
ideas still latent in them. Their principal town is Santa Cruz
de Mayo, and they are variously estimated at from 7,000 to
10,000 souls. The most important study of the language, the
Cahita, is a grammar (Arte) by an anonymous Jesuit published in
Mexico in 1737.
ALEGRE, Hist. de la Compania de Jesus (Mexico, 1841); BANCRFOFT,
North Mexico States (San Francisco, 1886-9); RIBAS, Triumphos de
Neustra Santa Fe (Madrid, 1645); Ward, Mexico in 1827 (London,
1828).
JAMES MOONEY
John Mayor
John Mayor
(MAJOR, MAIR; also called JOANNES MAJORIS and HADDINGTONUS
SCOTUS)
A Scotch philosopher and historian, b. at Gleghornie near
Haddington, 1496; d. at St. Andrew's, 1550. He studied at
Oxford, Cambridge, and Paris, where he was graduated as master
of arts in the College of St. Barbe in 1494 and as doctor of
theology in the College of Montaigu in 1505. He spent the
greater part of his remaining life as professor of logic and
theology; from 1505-18 at the University of Paris, from 1518-23
at the University of Glasgow, from 1523-5 at the University of
St. Andrew's, and from 1525-1530 again at Paris. In 1530 he
returned to St. Andrew's and was made provost of St. Salvator's
College, a position which he occupied until his death. One of
the greatest scholastic philosophers of his times, he had among
his pupils the future Scotch reformers John Knox, Patrick
Hamilton, and George Buchanan. In philosophy he was the chief
exponent of the nominalistic or terministic tendency which was
then prevalent at the University of Paris, while, as a canonist,
he held that the chief ecclesiastical authority does not reside
in the pope but in the whole Church. In like manner he held that
the source of civil authority lies with the people who transfer
it to the ruler and can wrest it from him, even by force, if
necessary. He remained a Catholic until his death, though in
1549 he advocated a national Church for Scotland. His numerous
literary productions were all written in Latin. His chief work,
"Historia majoris Britannae, tam Angliae quam Scotiae" (Paris,
1521 and Edinburgh, 1740), translated into English for the first
time by Archibald Constable, "History of the Greater Britain,
both England and Scotland" (Edinburgh, 1892), is written in
barbarous Latin, but truthfully and faithfully portrays the
author's vigour and spirit of independence. His other works are
mostly philosophical, viz: a commentary on Peter Lombard's Books
of Sentences (Paris, 1508), "Introductorium" or a commentary on
Aristotle's dialectics (Paris, 1508), the lectures which he
delivered on logic in the College of Montaigu (Lyons, 1516),
commentaries on Aristotle's physical and ethical writings
(Paris, 1526), "Quaestiones logicales" (Paris, 1528), a
commentary on the four Gospels (Paris, 1529). He was also the
first to edit the so-called "Reportia Parisiensia" of Duns
Scotus (Paris, 1517-8).
MACKAY, Life of John Major, prefixed to Constable's tr. of
Mayor's History (Edinburgh, 1892). The preceding work contains
also a complete list of works written by Major, and an estimate
of them by the translator; BROWN, George Buchanan, Humanist and
Reformer (Edinburgh, 1890), 38-41; LAW, John Major in Scottish
Review, July 1892.
MICHAEL OTT
Mayoruna Indians
Mayoruna Indians
A noted and savage tribe of Panoan linguistic stock, ranging the
forests between the Ucayali, the Yavari and the Maranon (Amazon)
rivers in north-east Peru and the adjacent portions of Brazil.
From the fact that some of them are of light skin and wear
beards, a legend has grown up that they are descended from
Spanish soldiers of Ursua's expedition (1569), but it is
probable that the difference comes from later admixture of
captive blood. As a tribe they are full-blooded and typically
Indian. It has been suggested that the story may have originated
from the confusion of "Maranones", the name given to the
followers of Ursau and Aguirre, with Mayorunas, which seems to
be from the Quicha language of Peru. Markham interprets the name
as "Men of Muyu" (Muyu-runa), indicating an ancient residence
about Moyobamba (Muyubamba), farther to the west. One of their
subtribes is known as "Barbudo" (Spanish, Bearded). Other
subtribes are Itacule, Musimo or Musquima, Urarina. The Mayoruna
tribes were among those gathered into the missions of the Mainas
province (see MAINA INDIANS) in the seventeenth and eighteenth
centuries, being represented in the missions of San Joaquin
(Mayoruna proper), Nuestra Senora del Carmen (Mayoruna proper),
and San Xavier (Urarina and Itucale. By the repeated attacks of
the Portuguese slave-hunters (see MAMELUCO) between 1680 and
1710, and the revolts of the mission Indians in 1695 and 1767
the Mayoruna were driven to take refuge in their forests and are
now wholly savage and particularly hostile to either whites or
Indians who enter their territory, even successfully repelling a
joint government exploring expedition in 1866. In person they
are tall and well-formed, with rather delicate features, going
perfectly naked, with flowing hair cut across the forehead.
Instead of bows they use spears, clubs, and blowguns, and are
famous for the strength of the deadly curari poison with which
they tip their arrows. They avoid river banks and do not use
canoes. The charge of cannibalism has not been proven. (See also
PANO).
RODRIGUEZ, Amazonas y Maranon (Madrid, 1684); HERVAS, Catalogo
de las Lenguas (Madrid, 1800); MARKHAM, Tribes in the Valleys of
the Amazons in Journ. Anth. Inst., XXIV (London, 1885); BRINTON,
The American Race (New York, 1891).
JAMES MOONEY
Mayotte, Nossi-Be, and Comoro
Mayotte, Nossi-Be, and Comoro
PREFECTURE APOSTOLIC OF MAYOTTE, NOSSI-BE, AND COMORO (MAYOTTAE,
NOSSIBEAE, ET COMORAE).
Mayotte is the farthest south and most important of the group of
Comoro Islands: Mayotte (Maote), Anjuan (Inzuani), Mohilla
(Moheli), and Great Comoro (Komoro, i.e. where there is fire, or
Angazidya). These islands, with Nossi-Be (large island) and
Santa Maria (Nossi Burai, Nossi Ibrahim), form the archipelago
known as "the Satellites of Madagascar". The Comoro Islands,
with their craggy evergreen shores, look like the cones of
submerged groves separated from the mainland by deep abysses.
The summits are not all of the same altitude; the highest point
of Mayotte is not over 1800 feet, where the highest peak of
Anjuan is about 5000 feet, while the central cone of Great
Comoro, whose volcanic activity is not yet exhausted, rises to
over 7000 feet. Two monsoons, consequently two seasons,
alternately affect the climate of the archipelago, which is
sometimes visited by cyclones. The soil of these islands is very
fertile, and produces in abundance vanilla, cloves, sugar-cane,
coffee, etc. The total population is about 80,000, mostly
African negroes, often erroneously called Makoas (a Mozambique
tribe). There are also some Sakalavas from Madagascar, mostly
former slaves freed when the islands were occupied by the
French. This Comoro Archipelago was for many centuries an
Arabian colony and was once very prosperous. As they navigated
along the African coast, the merchants of Idumea and Yemen
created a special and interesting type, the Comorinos.
Commingled with these Arabian half-breeds, once the sole owners
of the country, there are now Banians from Cutch and Hindus from
Bombay, who carry on almost the entire commerce. There are also
a few European or creole planters and officials from Reunion or
Mauritius. In 1843 the French Government, called in by the
sultan, took possession of Mayotte, which became, with Nossi-Be,
a post of surveillance over Madagascar. All these islands now
form a French colony. In 1844, Mayotte, Nossi-Be, and the
Comoros were made an Apostolic prefecture and confided to the
Fathers of the Holy Ghost. In 1898, when the same missionaries
were given the ecclesiastical administration of Northern
Madagascar, these smaller islands and Santa Maria were attached
to the Apostolic Vicariate at Diego Suarez. Santa Maria and
Nossi-Be have resident missionaries; the other islands are
regularly visited.
The population of these islands is largely Mohammedan and
therefore strongly anti-Christian; for this reason little
religious progress is made. In all of the islands there are
hardly three or four thousand Catholics. There are no
Protestants.
Missiones Catholicae (Rome, 1907).
ALEXANDE LE ROY
Beda Mayr
Beda Mayr
A Bavarian Benedictine philosopher, apologist, and poet, b. 15
January, 1742 at Daiting near Augsburg; d. 28 April, 1794, in
the monastery of Heillgenkreuz in Donauworth. After studying at
Scheyern, Augsburg, Munich and Freiburg im Breisgau, he took
vows in the Benedictine monastey of Heiligenkreuz on 29
September, 1762, studied theology at the common study-house of
the Bavarian Benedictines in Benediktbeuern, was ordained priest
on January, l 766, taught mathematics, philosophy, rhetoric,
theology arld canon law at his monastery, where he was also
librarian and, for some time, prior. The last 28 years of his
life he spent in his monastery, with the exception of four years
during which he was pastor of Mundling. He was an exemplary
religious and a popular preacher, but, as a philosopher, he was
imbued with the subjectivistic criticism of Kant and, as a
theologian, he was irenic beyond measure. In a letter to Henry
Braun, superintendent of the Bavarian schools, he sets forth the
opinion that a unification of the Catholic and the Protestant
religion is possible. Braun published this letter without the
consent of the author under the title "Der erste Schritt zur
kuenftigen Vereinigung der katholischen und evangelischen
Kirche" (Munich, 1778). In consequence Mayr was censured by the
Bishop of Augsburg and temporarily forbidden to teach theology.
His chief work, "Vertheidigung der natuerlichen, christlichen
und katholischen Religion nach den Beduerfnissen unserer Zeiten"
in three parts (Augsburg, 1787-90)) is equally irenic and
permeated with the philosophy of Kant. It was placed on the
Index in 1792 and ably refuted by the ex-Jesuit Hochbichler
ex-Jesuit Hoehbichler (Augsburg, 1790). Lindner (infra)
enumerates 58 literary productions of Mayr. They include 21
dramas, four volumes of sermons (Augsburg, 1777), numerous
occasional poems, and various treatises on philosophical,
theological, and mathematical subjects.
BAADER, Lexikon verstorbener baierischer Schriftsteller des 18 u
.19 Jahrh., I, ii (Augsburg u. Leipzig, 1825) 12-16; LINDNER,
Die Schriftsteller des Benediktiner Ordens im heutigen
Konigreich Bayern seit 1750, II (Ratisbon, 1880), 137-41.
MICHAEL OTT
Francis Mayron
Francis Mayron
(DE MAYRONIS)
Born about 1280, probably at Mayronnes, Department of
Basses-Alpes, he entered the Franciscan order at the
neighbouring Digne (or Sisteron). He had been teaching at the
University of Paris for a long time as bachelor of theology
when, on 24 May, 1323, John XXII at the request of King Robert
of Naples, commanded the chancellor of the university to confer
the degree of master of theology upon him. On 27 Sept., 1317,
St. Elzear de Sabran died at Paris in Francis's arms. Francis
was afterwards sent to Italy, and died at Piacenza, probably 26
July, 1327. It is generally accepted that Mayron introduced the
famous "Actus Sorbonicus" into the University of Paris. This
occurred at a disputation lasting from 5 a. m. to 7 p. m., in
which the advocate had to defend his theses against any and all
opponents who might offer to attack them, without any assistance
and without either food or drink. Denifle has, however, denied
this ("Chartularium Universit. Paris", II, Paris, 1891, 273),
though only for this reason, that no "document" mentions
anything about any such introduction by Mayron. Mayron was a
distinguished pupil of Duns Scotus, whose teaching he usually
followed. He was surnamed Doctor acutus, or Doctor illuminatus,
also Magister abstractionum. His "Scripta super 4 libros
Sententiarum" appeared at Venice, in 1507-8, 1519-20, 1520,
1526, 1556, 1567.
The treatises added thereto, "De formalitatibus", "De primo
principio", "Explanatio divinorum terminorum", are not his, but
have been collected from his teachings. The "De univocatione
entis", edited with other writings at Ferrara before 1490, is
Mayron's. His work "Conflatus", on the sentences, appeared at
Treviso in 1476; Basle, 1489, 1579(?); Cologne, 1510. Distinct
from the latter are the "Conflatile", Lyons, 1579; "Passus super
Universalia", "Praedicamenta", etc., Bologna, 1479, Lerida,
1485, Toulouse, 1490, Venice, 1489; "Sermones de tempore cum
Quadragesimali", two editions without place or date, probably
Brussels, 1483, and Cologne, Venice, I491; "Sermones de
Sanctis", Venice, 1493, Basle, 1498 (with fourteen
dissertations); "Tractatus de Conceptione B.M.V.", ed. Alva and
Astorga in "Monumenta Seraphica pro Immaculata Conceptione",
Louvain, 1665; "Theologicae Veritates in St. Augustinum de
Civitate Dei", Cologne,1473, Treviso, 1476, Toulouse, 1488,
Venice, 1489 (?); "Veritates ex libris St. Augustini de
Trinitate", Lyons,1520. There are many other unedited writings
on the works of St. Augustine, and philosophical and theological
works, which testify to the extensive knowledge and the
penetrating intellect of this eminent pupil of Duns Scotus. The
treatise "De celebratione Missae", is also probably by him (cf.
Ad. Franz, "Die Messe im deutschen Mittelalter", Freiburg, 1902,
493-5).
RINONICO A PISIS, Liber Conformitatum in Analecta Francis cana,
IV(Quaracchi, 1906), 339, 523, 540, 544; WADDING, Scriptores
Ordinis Minorum (Rome, 1650), 123-5; ibid. (1806), 84; ibid.
(1906), 85-6; SBARALEA, Supplementum ad Scriptores O. M., (Rome,
1806), 267-72 2nd. ed., ibid. 1908), 283-88; JOH. A. S. ANTONIO,
Bibliotheca universa franciscana, I (Madrid, 1732), 405 sq.;
FERET, La Faculte de Theologie de Paris, III, 323-30 (Paris,
1884--); STOCKL, Geschite der Philosophie im Mittelalter, II
(Mainz, 1865), II, 868; HAUREAU, Histoire la Philosophie
scolastique, II, ii (Paris, 1880), 298sq.; HURTER, Nomenclator
literarius, II (Innsbruck, 1906), 522- 25; CHEVALIER, Repertoire
de sources hist., II (Paris, 1907), 3271.
MICHAEL BIHL
Jules Mazarin
Jules Mazarin
Born either at Rome or at Piscina in the Abruzzi, of a very old
Sicilian family, 14 July, 1602; died at Vincennes, 9 March,
1661. His father was majordomo to the Colonna family at Rome.
One of his uncles, Giulio Mazarini (1544-1622), a Jesuit,
enjoyed a great reputation in Italy, particularly at Bologna, as
a preacher, and published several volumes of sacred eloquence.
His youth was full of excitement: he accompanied the future
Cardinal Colonna to Madrid; he was in turn a captain of
pontifical troops and then a pontifical diplomat in the
Valtelline War (1624) and the Mantuan War of Succession
(1628-30). The truce which he negotiated (26 October, 1630)
between the French, on one side, and the Spaniards and the Duke
of Savoy, on the other, won for him the esteem of Richelieu, who
was well pleased at his letting Pignerol fall into the hands of
the French. The Spaniards tried to injure him with Pope Urban
VIII, but the influence of Cardinal Antonio Barberini and a
letter from Richelieu saved him. He became canon of St. John
Lateran, vice-legate at Avignon (1632), and nuncio extraordinary
in France (1634). The Spaniards complained that in this last
post Mazarin made it his exclusive business to support
Richelieu's policy, and he was dismissed from the nunciature by
Urban VIII (17 Jan., 1636). Soon after leaving the papal
service, he went to Paris, placed himself at Richelieu's
disposition, and was naturalized as a French subject in April,
1639. Richelieu commissioned him, late in 1640, to sign a secret
treaty between France and Prince Thomas of Savoy, and caused him
to be made a cardinal on 16 Dec., 1641. Shortly before
Richelieu's death, Mazarin by a piece of clever management, had
been able to effect the reoccupation of Sedan by French troops,
and Richelieu on his deathbed (4 Dec., 1642) recommended him to
the king. On the death of Louis XIII (14 May, 1642), Anne of
Austria, leaving the Duc d'Orleans the shadowy title of
lieutenant-general of the kingdom gave the reality of power to
Mazarin, who first pretended to be on the point of setting out
for Italy, and then pretended that his acceptance of office was
only provisional, until such time as the peace of Europe should
be re-established.
But Mazarin, like Richelieu, was, in the event, to retain power
until his death, first under the queen regent and then under the
king after Louis XIV (q. v.) had attained his majority. His very
humble appearance and manner, his gentle and kindly ways, had
contributed to his elevation, and Anne's affection for him was
the best guarantee of his continuance in office. The precise
character of his relations with Anne of Austria is one of the
enigmas of history. Certain letters of Anne of Austria to
Mazarin, published by Cousin, and admissions made by Anne to Mme
de Brienne and recorded in the Memoirs of Lomenie de Brienne,
prove that the queen regent was deeply attached to the cardinal.
Still, "my sensibilities have no part in it", she said to Mme de
Brienne. Few historians give credence to Anne's assertion on
this point, and some go so far as to accept the allegations of
the Princess Palatine in her letters of 1717, 1718, and 1722,
according to which Anne of Austria and Mazarin were married. M.
Loiseleur, who has made a careful study of the problem, believes
that Mazarin was never married; it is certain that he retained
the title and insignia of a cardinal until his death; probably
he was even a cardinal-priest, though he never visited Rome
after his elevation to the purple and seems never to have
received the hat. And in any case he held the title of Bishop of
Metz from 1653 to 1658.
Mazarin continued Richelieu's policy against the House of
Austria. Aided by the victories of Conde and Turenne, he
succeeded in bringing the Thirty Years' War to a conclusion with
the Treaties of Munster and Osnabrueck (Treaty of Westphalia),
which gave Alsace (without Strasburg) to France; and in 1659 he
ended the war with Spain in the Peace of the Pyrenees, which
gave to France Roussillon, Cerdagne, and part of the Low
Countries. Twice, in 1651 and 1652, he was driven out of the
country by the Parliamentary Fronde and the Fronde of the
Nobles, with the innumerable pamphlets (Mazarinades) which they
published against him, but the final defeat of both Frondes was
the victory of royal absolutism, and Mazarin thus prepared the
way for Louis XIV's omnipotence. Lastly, in 1658, he placed
Germany, in some sort, under the young king's protection, by
forming the League of the Rhine, which was destined to hold the
House of Austria in check. Thus did he lay the foundation of
Louis XIV's greatness. His foreign policy was, as Richelieu's
had often been, indifferent to the interests of Catholicism: the
Peace of Westphalia gave its solemn sanction to the legal
existence of Calvinism in Germany, and, while the nuncio vainly
protested, Protestant princes were rewarded with secularized
bishoprics and abbacies for their political opposition to
Austria. Neither did it matter much to him whether the
monarchical principle was respected or contemned in a foreign
country: he was Cromwell's ally. Towards the Protestants he
pursued an adroit policy. In 1654 Cromwell opened negotiations
with the Calvinists of the South of France, who, the year
before, had taken up arms in Ardeche to secure certain liberties
for themselves. Mazarin knew how to keep the Calvinists amused
with fine words, promises, and calculated delays: for six years
they believed themselves to be on the eve of recovering their
privileges, and in the end they obtained nothing. The cardinal
well knew how to retain in the king's service valuable
Protestants like Turenne and Gassion. His personal relations
with the Holy See were hardly cordial. He could not prevent
Cardinal Pamfili, a friend of Spain, from being elected pope (15
Sept., 1644) as Innocent X. He received in France, one after the
other, Cardinals Antonio and Francesco Barberini, nephews of the
late pope, and the Bull of 21 February, 1646, fulminated by
Innocent X against the cardinals, who were absenting themselves
without authorization, (by the tenor of which Bull Mazarin
himself was bound to repair to Rome), was voted by the
Parliament of Paris "null and abusive". Mazarin obtained a
decree of the Royal Council forbidding money to be remitted to
Rome for expediting Bulls, there was a show of preparing an
expedition against Avignon, and Innocent X, yielding to these
menaces, ended by restoring their property and dignities to
Mazarin's proteges, the Barberini. Following up his policy of
bullying the pope, Mazarin sent two fleets to the Neapolitan
coast to seize the Spanish presidios nearest to the papal
frontiers. Apart from this, he had no Italian policy, properly
speaking, and his demonstrations in Italy had no other object
than to compel Spain to keep her troops there, and to bring the
pope to a complaisant attitude towards France and towards
Mazarin's own relations. The elevation of his brother Michael
Mazarin to the cardinalate (October, 1647) was one of his
diplomatic victories. Though not interested in questions of
theology, Mazarin detested the Jansenists for the part taken by
some of them -- disavowed, however, by Antoine Arnauld -- in the
Fronde, and for their support of Cardinal de Retz (q. v.). A
declaration of the king in July, 1653, and an assembly of
bishops in May, 1655, over which Mazarin presided, gave
executive force to the decrees of Innocent X against Jansenism.
The order condemning Pascal's "Provinciales" to be burnt, the
order for the dismissal of pupils, novices, and postulants from
the two convents of Port-Royal, the formula prepared by the
Assembly of the Clergy against the "Augustinus" (1661), which
formula all ecclesiastics had to sign -- all these must be
regarded as episodes of Mazarin's anti-Jansenist policy. On his
deathbed he warned the king "not to tolerate the Jansenist sect,
not even their name". Having little by little become "as
powerful as God the Father when the world began", enjoying the
revenues of twenty-seven abbacies, always ready to enrich
himself by whatever means, and possessing a fortune equivalent
to about $40,000,000 in twentieth century American money,
Mazarin, towards the end of his life, multiplied in Paris the
manifestations of his wealth. He organized a free lottery, at
his own expense, with prizes amounting to more than a million
francs, collected in his own palace more wonderful things than
the king's palace contained, had no objection to presiding at
tournaments, exhibitions of horsemanship, and ballets, and
patronized the earliest efforts of the comic poet Moliere. The
young Louis XIV entertained a profound affection for him and,
what is more, fell in love with the cardinal's two nieces,
Olympe Mancini and Marie Mancini, one after the other. Mazarin
sent Marie away, to prevent the king from entertaining the idea
of marrying her. But if, for reasons of state, he refused to
become the uncle of the King of France, it seems that there were
moments when he dreamed of the tiara: the Abbe Choisy asserts
that Mazarin died "in the vision of being made pope". One
reminiscence at least of the old political ideas of Christian
Europe is to be found in his will: he left the pope a fund
(600,000 livres) to prosecute the war against the Turks. The
cardinal, who throughout his life had given but little thought
to the interests of Christianity, seems to have sought pardon by
remembering them on his deathbed. The same will directed the
foundation of the College of the Four Nations, for the free
education of sixty children from those provinces which he had
united to France. To this college he bequeathed the library now
known as the Bibliotheque Mazarine. Mazarin's nieces made
princely marriages: Anne Marie Martinozzi became the Princesse
de Conti; Laura Martinozzi, the Duchesse de Modene; Laure
Mancini died in 1657, Duchesse de Mercoeur; Olympe Mancini
became Comtesse de Soissons; Hortense Mancini, Marquise de la
Meilleraie and Duchesse de Mazarin; Marie Mancini, Countess
Colonna; Marie Anne Mancini, Duchesse de Bouillon. All these
women, and particularly the last four, had singularly stormy
careers.
CHERUEL AND D'AVENEL, eds., lettres du Cardinal Mazarin pendant
son ministere (9 vols., Paris, 1872-1906); RAVENEL., ed.,
Iettres de Mazarin `a la reine, ecrites durant sa retraite hors
de France en 1651 et 1652 (Paris, 1836); COUSIN, ed., Carnets de
Mazarin in Journal des Savants (1855); MOREAU, Bibliographie des
Mazarinades (3 vols., Paris, 1849-51); IDEM, Choix de
Mazarinades (2 vols., Paris, 1852-58); LABADIE, Nouveau
supplement `a la bibliographie des Mazarinades (Paris, 1904);
CHERUEL Hist. de France pendant la minorite de Louis XIV (4
vols., Paris, 1879-80); IDEM Hist. de France sous le ministere
de Mazarin (1651-1661) (3 vols., Paris, 1883); PERKINS, France
under Mazarin (2 vols., New York, 1886); HASSALL., Mazarin,
(London, 1903); BOUGEANT, Hist. des guerres et des negociations
qui precederent le traite de Westphalie (Paris, 1727); IDEM,
Hist. du traite de Westphalie (2 vols., Paris, 1744); COCHIN,
Les Eglises calvinistes du Midi, le cardinal Mazarin et
Cromwell, in Revue des Questions Historiques (July, 1904);
RENEE, Les nieces de Mazarin (Paris, 1856); CHANTELAUZE, Ies
derniers jours de Mazarin in Correspondant (10 July, 10 August,
1881); COUSIN, Mme de Hautefort (5th ed., Paris, 1886), 393-404;
LOISELEUR, Problemes historiques (Paris, 1867); COLQUHOUN-GRANT,
Queen and Cardinal (London, 1906).
GEORGES GOYAU
Mazatec Indians
Mazatec Indians
An important Mexican tribe of Zapotecan linguistic stock,
occupying the mountain region of north-east Oaxaca, chiefly in
the districts of Cuicatlan and Teotitlan, and estimated to
number from 18,000 to 20,000 souls. Their chief town, Huantla,
with its dependent villages, has a population of about 7,000.
Their popular name "Mazateca" is that given them by the Aztec,
and is said to mean "Lords of the Deer"; they call themselves
Ae-ae, with nasal pronunciation (Bauer). Although closely
related to their neighbours, the formerly highly cultured
Zapotec and Mixtec, the Mazatec were of ruder habit, as became a
race of mountaineers. Like the Zapotec also they maintained
their independence against the powerful Aztec empire, with which
they maintained almost constant defensive war. The principal
portion of the present state of Oaxaca was brought under Spanish
dominion by Cortes in 1521. In 1535 it was established as a
diocese, with Father Juan Lopez de Barate, of the Dominicans, as
its first bishop, through whose influence the conversion of the
natives was entrusted to missionaries of that order, by whom it
was successfully accomplished despite the extreme devotion of
the Indians to their sacred rites, even to secreting their
sacred images beneath the very altar that they might unsuspected
do reverence to the one while appearing the venerate the other.
In 1575 the Jesuits reinforced the Dominicans. Even to-day,
while outwardly conforming to the rules of the church and
manifesting the greatest deference and affection toward the
resident priests, the Mazatec retain most of their ancient
beliefs and many of their ceremonies. By tolerance of the
Mexican Government they maintained their tribal autonomy under
their hereditary chiefs up to 1857, as also a professional
keeper of their sacred traditions, the last of whom, a
descendant of their ancient kings, died in 1869.
Their native cult, still kept to a large extent in combination
with the newer rites, was an animal worship, the snake, panther,
alligator, and eagle being most venerated. The soul after death
went to the "kingdom of the animals", where for a long time it w
andered about being assisted or attacked by the animals,
according as the dead person had been kind or cruel to them in
life. At one point in the journey the soul was assisted across a
wide stream by a black dog. It seems to have been held that the
soul was finally reincarnated as an animal. Hence in many
villages black dogs are still kept in almost every family and
buried in the grave with the owner. The ancient sowing and
harvest rites are still kept up, with invocation of the animal
gods and spirits of the mountain, and burial of curious sacred
bundles in the fields. Marriages and baptisms are solemnized in
regular church form by the priest, but the baptism is followed
later by a house festival, of which a principal feature is the
washing of the godfather's hands in order to cleanse him from
the sin which has come to upon him from holding the infant in
his arms during the baptism. The occupations of the Mazatec are
farming and the simple trades. The women are expert weavers of
cotton. The houses are light huts daubed with clay and thatched
with palm leaves. Men and women are fully dressed, woman being
picturesque in shawls and gowns of their own weaving, decorated
with ribbons and worked with human and animal figures,
particularly that of the eagle. They have still their own
calendar of thirteen months, with days bearing animal names. The
second volume of Pimentel's "Cuadro" contains a sketch of the
language. See also ZAPOTEC.
BANCROFT, Hist. Mexico, II (San Francisco, 1886); BAUER,
Heidentum und Aberglaube, unter den Macatec,a-Indianern in
Zeirschr. fuer Ethnologie XL (Berlin, 1908); BRINTON, American
Race (New York, 1891); PIMENTEL, Cuadro . . . de las Lenguas
Indigenas de Mexico (2 vols., Mexico, 1862-5); STARR, In Indian
Mexico (Chicago, 1908).
JAMES MOONEY
Mazenod
Charles Joseph Eugene de Mazenod
Bishop of Marseilles, and founder of the Congregation of the
Oblates of Mary Immaculate, b. at Aix, in Provence, 1 August,
1782; d. at Marseilles 21 May, 1861. De Mazenod was the
offspring of a noble family of southern France, and even in his
tender years he showed unmistakable evidence of a pious
disposition and a high and independent spirit. Sharing the fate
of most French noblemen at the time of the Revolution, he passed
some years as an exile in Italy, after which he studied for the
priesthood, though he was the last representative of his family.
On 21 December, 1811, he was ordained priest at Amiens, whither
he had gone to escape receiving orders at the hands of Cardinal
Maury, who was then governing the archdiocese of Paris against
the wishes of the pope. After some years of ecclesiastical
labours at Aix, the young priest, bewailing the sad fate of
religion resulting among the masses from the French Revolution,
gathered together a little band of missionaries to preach in the
vernacular and to instruct the rural populations of Provence. He
commenced, 25 January, 1816, his Institute which was immediately
prolific of much good among the people, and on 17 February,
1826, was solemnly approved by Leo XII under the name of
Congregation of the Oblates of Mary Immaculate.
After having aided for some time his uncle, the aged Bishop of
Marseilles, in the administration of his diocese, Father De
Mazenod was called to Rome and, on 14 October, 1832, consecrated
titular Bishop of Icosium, which title he had, in the beginning
of 1837, to exchange for that of Bioshop of Marseilles. His
episcopate was marked by measures tending to the restoration in
all its integrity of ecclesiastical discipline. De Mazenod
unceasingly strove to uphold the rights of the Holy See,
somewhat obscured in France by the pretensions of the Gallican
Church. He favoured the moral teachings of Blessed (now Saint)
Alphonsus Liguori, whose theological system he was the first to
introduce in France, and whose first life in French he caused to
be written by one of his disciples among the Oblates. At the
same time he watched with a jealous eye over the education of
youth, and, in spite of the susceptibilities of the civil power,
he never swerved from what he considered the path of justice. In
fact, by the apostolic freedom of his public utterances he
deserved to be compared to St. Ambrose. He was ever a strong
supporter of papal infallibility and a devout advocate of Mary's
immaculate conception, in the solemn definition of which (1854)
he took an active part. In spite of his well-known
outspokenness, he was made a Peer of the French Empire, and in
1851 Pius IX gave him the pallium.
Meanwhile he continued as Superior General of the religious
family he had founded and whose fortunes will be found described
in the article on the Oblates of Mary Immaculate. Such was the
esteem in which he was held at Rome that the pope had marked him
out as one of the cardinals he was to create when death claimed
him at the ripe age of almost seventy-nine.
Cooke, Sketches of the Life of Mgr de Mazenod, Bishop of
Marseilles (London and Dublin, 1879); Rambert, Vie de Mgr D. J.
E. De Mazenod (Tours, 1883); Ricard, Mgr de Mazenod, eveque de
Marseille (Paris, n. d.).
A.G. Morice
Mazzara Del Vallo
Mazzara del Vallo
DIOCESE OF MAZZARA DEL VALLO (MAZARIENSIS).
The city is situated in the province of Trepani, Sicily, on the
Mediterranean, at the mouth of the Mazzara River. It carries on
a large lemon trade, has several mineral springs in the
vicinity, and occupies the site of the emporium of ancient
Silinus. The port very early attracted a Megarian colony (630
B.C.); in 409 B.C. it was taken by the Carthaginians; and in 249
was completely destroyed and its inhabitants deported to
Lilybaeum (Marsala). Gradually there arose around the port a new
city, captured by Sarcarens in 827. It was later made the
capital of one of the three great valli into which the Saracens
divided Sicily. In the struggle of the Saracens against the
Normans for the possession of the island, Mazzara was hotly
contested, especially in 1075 when the Saracens were completely
routed by Count Roger. The episcopal See of Lilybaeum was then
transferred to Mazzara. Of the bishops of Lilybaeum the best
known is Paschasinus, legate of Leo I at the Council of
Chalcedon (451). The first Bishop of Mazzara was Stefano de
Ferro, a relative of Count Roger (1093). The cathedral was then
founded, and later embellished by Bishop Tristiano (1157). Other
noteworthy bishops were Cardinal Bessarion (1449); Giovanni de
Monteaperto(1470), who restored the cathedral and founded a
library; Bernardo Gasco (1579), of Toledo, founder of the
seminary; Cardinal Gian Domenico Spinola (1637); the Franciscan
Francesco M. Graffeo (1685). In 1844 the newly erected diocese
of Marsala was separated from Mazzara. Mazzara is a suffragan of
Palermo, has 23 parishes, 430 priests, 5 religious houses of men
and 29 of women, 3 schools for boys and 25 for girls, and a
population of 276,000.
CAPPELLETTI, Le Chiese d'Italia, XXI (Venice, 1857).
U. BENIGNI
Camillo Mazzella
Camillo Mazzella
Theologian and cardinal, born at Vitulano, 10 Feb., 1833; d. at
Rome, 26 March, 1900. He entered the ecclesiastical seminary of
Benevento when about eleven years of age, completed his
classical, philosophical, and theological studies before his
twenty-fourth year, and was ordained priest in Sept., 1855, a
dispensation for defect of canonical age having been granted by
Pius IX. For two years after his ordination he remained at
Vitulano, attending to the duties of canon in the parish church,
a position he held from his family. Resigning this office he
entered the Society of Jesus, 4 Sept., 1857. On the expulsion of
the Jesuits from Italy in 1860 he was sent to Fourvieres, where
after reviewing his theology for a year and making a public
defense "de universa theologia", he taught dogmatic theology for
three years, and moral theology for two. In the early autumn of
1867 he came to America and taught theology for two years to the
members of the Society of Jesus at Georgetown University,
Washington. On the opening of Woodstock College, Maryland, he
was appointed prefect of studies and professor of dogmatic
theology. While there he published four volumes: "De Religione
et Ecclesia", "De Deo Creante", "De Gratia Christi", and "De
virtutibus infusis", which went through several editions. In
October, 1878, he was called to Rome by Leo XIII to fill the
chair of theology at the Gregorian University left vacant by
Father Franzeline's elevation to the cardinalate, and shortly
afterwards, on the retirement of Father Kleutgen, was made
prefect of studies. On 7 June, 1886, Leo XIII created Father
Mazella a cardinal deacon. Ten years later he became cardinal
priest. Not quite a year afterwards (18 April, 1897), at the
express wish of the pope, he became cardinal bishop of
Palestrina, to the government of which he applied himself with
untiring energy. He was the first Jesuit on whom was bestowed
the dignity of cardinal bishop. As cardinal he took an active
part in the deliberations of a number of Congregations, was for
several years the president of the Academy of St. Thomas, and,
at various times, prefect of the Congregations of the Index, of
Studies, and of Rites.
TIMOTHY BROSNAHAN
Lodovico Mazzolini
Lodovico Mazzolini
(Also known as MAZZOLINI DA FERRARA, LODOVICO FERRARESA, and IL
FERRARESE)
Italian painter, b. in Ferrara in 1480, d., according to one
account, in 1528, and to another, in 1530; place of death
unknown. This artist is generally represented as having been a
pupil of Lorenzo Costa, and has having come under the influence
of Ercole Roberti, but should be more correctly described as a
pupil of Panetti. Morelli called him "the Glow-worm", "der
Gluehwurm", from his brilliant gem-like colour and luminous
sparkling quality, and he proved that Mazzolini was a pupil of
Panetti rather than Costa, by the form of the ear and hand in
his paintings, by his landscape backgrounds with deep conical
blue mountains and streaks of dazzling white, and by his scheme
of colour. Comparing Lorenzo Costa with Perugino, Morelli
compares Panetti with Pintorrichio, although he says as an
artist the Perugian far surpassed the somewhat dry and
narrow-minded artist of Ferrara, but it is perfectly clear that
it was to this dry and so-called narrow-minded man that
Mazzolini owed his excellent work. The architectural backgrounds
of his pictures are their specially distinctive feature, and
notably the creamy-toned marble. Attention should further be
directed to his use of gold in the high lights of his draperies.
Of his personal history we know nothing, save that he worked
both in Ferrara and Bologna, and that he married in 1521
Giovanna, the daughter of Bartolomeo Vacchi, a Venetian painter.
His most notable picture represents Christ disputing with the
doctors, is dated 1524, and to be seen at Berlin. It is in his
pictures with small figures that he displays the power of
imparting pleasure, as his gift was rather in the direction of
genre than of historical painting, and to most observers there
is something curiously Flemish about his work. There is a second
important picture of his in Berlin, a Virgin and Child, two at
the Louvre, one in Ferrara, three in the National Gallery, and
three in Florence, other examples in Munich, and in various
private collections. The chief work of his in England is one
belonging to Lord Wimborne. He is also represented in the
galleries of Turin, St. Petersburg, The Hague, and in the
Capitol of Rome, the Doria, and the Borghese.
BARUFFALDI GIROLAMO, Vite dei Pittori Ferraesi (Ferrara), in MS,
also the Oretti MS. (Bologna); ORLANDI, Abbecedario Pittorico
(Bologna, 1719); VASARI, Le Vite dei Pittori (Florence, 1878,
1885).
GEORGE CHARLES WILLIAMSON
Sylvester Mazzolini
Sylvester Mazzolini
( Mozolini, also Prierias)
Theologian, b. at Priero, Piedmont, 1460; d. at Rome,
1523-sometimes confounded with Sylvester Ferrariensis (d. 1526).
At the age of fifteen he entered the Order of St. Dominic.
Passing brilliantly through a course of studies he taught
theology at Bologna, Pavia (by invitation of the senate of
Venice), and in Rome, whither he was called by Julius II in
1511. In 1515 he was appointed Master of the Sacred Palace,
filling that office until his death. His writings cover a vast
range, including treatises on the planets, the power of the
demons, history, homiletics, the works of St. Thomas Aquinas,
the primacy of the popes. He is credited with being the first
theologian who by his writings attacked publicly the subversive
errors of Martin Luther. John Tetzel's productions against the
arch-reformer are called by Echard scattered pages (folia
volitantia), and Mazzolini stands forth as the first champion of
Roman Pontiffs against Luther. The heresiarch replied to
Mazzolini's arguments; the latter published rejoinders, and
there was a regular controversy between the innovator and the
defender of the ancient Faith. The necessity of promptness in
attack and defence will account for defects of style in some of
his writings. His principal works are: "De juridica et
irrefragabili veritate Romanae Ecclesiae Romanique Pontificis"
(Rome, 1520); "Epitoma responsionis ad Lutherum" (Perugia,
1519); "Errata et argumenta M. Lutheri" (Rome, 1520); "Summa
Summarum, quae Sylvestrina dicitur" (Rome, 1516), reprinted
forty times; an alphabetical encyclopedia of theological
questions; "Rosa aurea" (Bologna, 1510) an exposition of the
Gospels of the year; "In theoricas planetarum" (Venice, 1513).
QuEtif- Echard, SS. Ord. Praed. II, 55; Touron, Hommes illust.
de l'Ordre de S. Dominique, III, 716; Michalski, De Sylv.
Prieratis ... vita et scripta (Munster, 1892).
D.J. Kennedy
Pietro Francesco Mazzuchelli
Pietro Francesco Mazzuchelli
(Also known as IL MORAZZONE, MARAZZONE, and MORANZONE).
Milanese painter, b. at Moranzone near Milan, either in 1571 or
1575; d. at Piacenza in 1626. In the early part of his life,
this painter resided in Rome, where he painted various
altar-pieces, then he passed on to Venice, and made a profound
study of the work of Titian, Tintoretto, and Paolo Veronese, so
enterely altering his and improving his scheme of colour, that
the pictures he painted when he came to Milan, although
representing subjects similar to those he had carried out in
Rome, could hardly be recognized as having come from the same
hand. He was patronized by Cardinal Borommeo, and from the Duke
of Savoy received the honour of knighthood and the order of St.
Maurice. In 1626 he was called to Piacenza to paint the cupola
of the cathedral, but was not able to finish this work, which he
commenced in a grand and vigorous style, and died, it is
believed, from an accident in connection with the scaffolding,
in consequence of which Guercino was called in to complete the
work. The chief painting by Mazzuchelli is that in the church of
San Giovanni at Como, and represents St. Michael and the angels.
VASARI, G., Le Vite dei Pittori (Florence, 1878, 1885); ORLANDI,
P. P., Abbecedario Pittorico (Bologna, 1719), also the Oretti,
MS. (Bologna).
GEORGE CHARLES WILLIAMSON
Mbaya Indians
Mbaya Indians
(Guaycurue)
A predatory tribe formerly ranging on both sides of the Paraguay
River, on the north and northwestern Paraguay frontier, and in
the adjacent portion of the province of Matto Grosso, Brazil.
They are one of a group of equestrian warlike and savage tribes,
constituting a distinct linguistic stock, the Guaycuran,
formerly roving over northern Paraguay and the upper Chaco
region, and of which the best known are the Abipon, made famous
by the missionary Dobrizhoffer, the Guaycurue proper, or Mbaya,
the Macobi, and the still savage and powerful Toba. The Lengua,
sometimes included under the same name, are now known to be a
branch of the Chiquito of Bolivia. The name, Mbaya, given to
them by the more peaceful Guarani, signified "terrible", "bad",
or "savage". The name, Guaycurue, now most commonly used, is
said to mean "runner". They have also been called Caballeros by
the Spaniards, on account of their fine horsemanship. According
to Father Lozano they had three main divisions: Epicua-yiqui
(Epiguayegi) in the North, Napin-yiqui in the West, and
Taqui-yiqui in the South. Iolis, another authority, gives a
different list of six divisions.
The Guaycurue were accustomed to prey upon the more sedentary
Guarani tribes, making sudden raids with quick retreats into
their own country, where tangled forests and treacherous swamps
made pursuit difficult and subjection almost impossible. In
1542, Alvar Nunez Cabec,a de Vaca, governor of Buenos Aires,
with a detachment of Spaniards and and contingent of Guarani,
inflicted upon them a signal defeat, chiefly by the terror of
his field guns and horses, with both of which the Guaycurue were
still unacquainted. The acquisition of horses soon transformed
them into a race of expert and daring equestrians, and for two
centuries they continued their raids upon the Spanish
settlements on the Paraguay River and the neighbouring missions.
As early as 1610 the Jesuits unsuccessfully attempted their
conversion. About the middle of the eighteenth century a peace
was arranged which, according to Dobrizhoffer, was faithfully
kept by the Indians. The Jesuit Joseph Sanchez Labrador was then
sent, at his own request, to work among these Guaycurue, who had
been considered the wildest and most dangerous tribe of the
region. Having made good progress in their difficult language,
he established for them, in 1670, the mission of Virgen de Belen
(now Belen), east of the present Concepcion, in Paraguay. They
were impatient of restraint, and, although many infants and
dying adults received baptism, according to Dobrizhoffer, "the
rest did little else than wander over the plains". The mission
influence, however, effectually tamed their ferocity. At the
expulsion of the Jesuits, in 1767, the Belen mission contained
260 Christian Indians, eight of the nine bands still remaining
in the forests.
In this same year was established by Father Manuel Duran the
last of the Paraguay Jesuit foundations, the mission of San Juan
Nepomucino, on the east bank of the river, among the Guana, or
Chana, a numerous agricultural or pedestrian tribe of the same
territory, subject to the Mbaya. When the missionaries were
driven out, this station contained 600 Indians. The conversion
of the Guana had been undertaken more than a century before by
Father Pedro Romero, who lost his life in 1645 at the hands of a
neighbouring wide tribe. Among the Guana, infanticide, polygamy,
and intoxication were unknown, and the men and women worked
together in the fields. About the close of the eighteenth
century, the Franciscans took up the work begun by the Jesuits,
and in the next fifty years gathered a number of Guaycurue and
Guana into missions, which continued until the tribes themselves
diminished or were assimilated. Lieutenant Page, who commanded a
mission sent by the United States Government to explore the
Paraguay river, gives an interesting and extended account of his
visit to one of these mission, Nossa Senhora de Bon Conselho,
near Albuquerque, Brazil, in 1853 (Page, "Report to the
Secretary of the Navy", Washington, 1855). Here the Christian
Guanas cultivated vegetables for the market afforded by the
neighbouring white settlements. Under the care, both temporal
and spiritual, of a Franciscan Father, these aborigines who,
only a few years earlier, had been wandering savages, now were a
remarkably neat, orderly, and thrifty community of husbandmen.
Fronting upon a public square, there stood the village church, a
school house, and a number of well-constructed thatched
dwellings, each dwelling having a frontage of twenty feet, with
interiors partitioned with curtains and fitted with raised
platforms to serve either as tables or beds. Among the
vegetables cultivated was a native rice, which they harvested in
canoes. Cotton, too, was grown, spun, dyed, and woven by the
women of the settlement. The men wore trousers and ponchos; the
women, a chemise girdled at the waist; the boys were exercised
in military tactics, and the children in general were not only
taught "the rudiments of a general education, but made some
progress in music and dancing". A few of the Mbaya proper still
exist on the western bank of the Paraguay in the neighbourhood
of the town of Concepcion. Other bands known as Guaycurue roam
over the adjacent districts of Matto Grosso, Brazil and may
number perhaps 1500 souls as against and estimated 15,000 or
18,000 a century ago. The Guana, on the Taquari and Miranda
Rivers in the same region are now labourers among the whites,
although still claimed as dependents by the Guaycurue.
In their primitive condition the men of the Guaycurue went
entirely naked, while the women wore only a short skirt. The men
trimmed their hair in a circular tuft. Girls had the head
closely shaven. The men painted their bodies and wore rings in
the lower lip. Boys were painted black until about fourteen
years old, then red for two years, when they were subjected to a
painful ordeal, before taking their station as warriors. War was
their chief business, their weapons being the bow, club, and
bone knife. The children born of captives were sold as slaves.
Their chief tribal ceremony was in honour of the Pleiades, and
was accompanied by a short battle between the men and the women,
ending with general intoxication. They buried their dead in the
ground, and voluntary human victims were sacrificed when a chief
died. Polygamy was unknown, but separation was frequent, and
infanticide common. They subsisted by fishing and hunting. Their
villages consisted each of a single communal structure in three
large rooms, the middle of which was reserved for the chief and
head men, and for the storage of weapons. The chief had great
authority, and with his head men, seems to have belonged to a
different clan, or gens, from the common warriors. Captives and
their descendants constituted a permanent slave class. As a
people they were tall and strongly built. Those still remaining
show the admixture of white captive blood and are gradually
assimilating to the settled population.
BRINTON, American Race (New York, 1891); CHARLEVOIX, Hist. of
Paraguay, I (London, 1796); DOBRIZHOFFER, Account of the
Abipones (London, 1822); HERVAS, Catalogo de las lenguas. I
(Madrid, 1800); LOZANO, Descripcion Chorographica de la Gran
Chaco (Cordoba, 1733); PAGE, La Plata, the Argentine Federation,
and Paraguay (New York, 1859); RECLUS, South America, II:
Amazonia and La Plata (New York, 1897).
JAMES MOONEY
Thomas Francis Meagher
Thomas Francis Meagher
Soldier, politician, b. at Waterford, Ireland, 3 August, 1823;
accidentally drowned in the Missouri River, Montana Territory,
U.S.A., 1 July, 1867. Educated in the Jesuit colleges of
Clongowes and Stonyhurst, he finished his college career in 1843
with a reputation for great oratorical ability which he devoted
at once, under O'Connell, to the cause of Repeal. His impetuous
nature chafed under the restraint of constitutional agitation,
and his impassioned eloquence stimulated the more radical
revolutionary efforts of the young Irelanders, who, in 1848,
broke away from O'Connell's leadership. In the spring of that
year he went with William Smith O'Brien to France as member of a
deputation to Lamartine to congratulate the people of France on
the establishment of a republic. A trial for "exciting the
people to rise in rebellion", the following May resulted in a
disagreement of the jury, but in the abortive rebellion in July
he was among those arrested, tried for high treason, and
sentenced on 23 October to be hanged. This was commuted to penal
servitude for life and on 29 July, 1849, with O'Brien and
Terence Bellew MacManus, he was transported to Tasmania.
Escaping from this penal colony in 1852, he landed in New York,
where his countrymen gave him a hearty welcome. His popularity
as a lecturer was immediate; he also studied law and, admitted
to the bar in 1855, started a paper called the "Irish News" (12
April, 1856), in which he published his "Personal
Recollections". Two years later he undertook an exploring
expedition in Central America; his narrative was printed in
"Harper's Magazine". When the Civil War broke out he espoused
the cause of the Union, raised a company of Zouaves, went to the
front with the Sixty-Ninth New York Volunteers, and participated
in the first battle of Bull Run. He then organized the famous
Irish Brigade, of which he was commissioned brigadier-general,
and with it participated in the operations of the Army of the
Potomac, in which it specially distinguished itself in the
battles of Fair Oak (1 June, 1862), the seven days' fight before
Richmond, Antietam, Fredericksburg (13 Dec., 1862), where it was
almost annihilated, and Chancellorsville (1863). He then
resigned his command because, he said, "it was perpetrating a
public deception to keep up a brigade so reduced in numbers, and
which he had been refused permission to withdraw from service
and recruit". A command of a military district in Tennessee was
at once given him, which he resigned after a short time. At the
close of the war he was made (July, 1865) Territorial Secretary
of Montana. During a trip made in the course of his
administration of this office he fell from a steamer into the
Missouri River at night and was drowned. His body was never
found.
CAVANAGH, Memorial of Gen. Thomas Francis Meagher (Worcester,
Mass., 1892); CONYNGHAM, The Irish Brigade and its Campaigns
(New York, 1867); SAVAGE, '98 and '48 (New York, 1856); DUFFY,
Young Ireland (London, 1880); Four Years of Irish History
(London, 1883); McCARTHY, History of Our Own Times, II (New
York, 1887); Irish American (New York), files.
THOMAS F. MEEHAN
Meath
Meath
(MIDENSIS).
Diocese in Ireland, suffragan of Armagh. In extent it is the
largest diocese in Ireland, and includes the greater part of the
counties Meath, Westmeath, King's, and a small portion of the
counties Longford, Dublin, and Cavan. The present Diocese of
Meath anciently comprised eight episcopal sees, the chief of
which was Clonard, founded in the middle of the sixth century by
St. Finian, "Tutor of the Saints of Erin". At the national Synod
of Kells, in 1172, over which Cardinal Paparo presided as legate
of Eugene III, it was decided that these sees be joined
together. The united see was assigned as first suffragan to
Armagh, and ranks immediately after the metropolitan sees in
Ireland. In his "Hibernia Dominicana" De Burgo says that Meath
is the foremost suffragan of Armagh, and has precedence even
though its bishop be the youngest of the Irish prelates in order
of consecration. Meath being the country of the Pale, many
Englishmen were appointed bishops of Meath, among them the
notorious Staples who apostatized in the reign of Edward VI, and
was deposed in 1554. Dr. Walsh, a Cistercian monk, succeeded,
and more than repaired the scandal caused by his recreant
predecessor. This noble confessor of the Faith bravely withstood
all the threats and blandishments of Queen Elizabeth and her
agents. He spent thirteen years in a dungeon in Dublin Castle,
and finally died an exile at Alcala in Spain. His name is
reckoned in more than one Irish Martyrology. Like honour is paid
to him by his own order, and his Cistercian biographer contends
that the martyr's crown is his as truly as if he had died in
torments. The succession of bishops in the See of Meath has been
continued without interruption to the present day, except during
a few brief interregnums in the penal days. It is a noteworthy
fact that, omitting Dr. Logan's short reign of a few years, but
three bishops ruled the Diocese of Meath from 1779 to 1899, Drs.
Plunket, Cantwell, and Nulty. Dr. Plunket, who had been
professor and superior in the Irish College of the Lombards,
Paris, was consecrated bishop by the papal nuncio at Paris in
1779. The vessel in which he returned to Ireland was attacked
and plundered by the famous Paul Jones, the American privateer,
who, however, to his credit be it said, afterwards restored the
episcopal property. For eight and forty years, with a truly
Apostolic spirit, this great bishop traversed the whole diocese
yearly, visiting every parish, preaching, catechizing, giving
seasonable counsel to the clergy and suitable instruction to the
people, so that in his declining years he was fittingly called,
by the Primate of Armagh, "the ornament and father of the Irish
Church". The catechism compiled by Dr. Plunket cannot easily be
improved, and is still used in the schools of the diocese. He
died in January, 1827, in his eighty-ninth year. His successor,
Dr. Logan, lived only a few years, and was succeeded by Dr.
Cantwell, the steadfast friend of Daniel O'ConneII. With great
energy Dr. Cantwell gathered the scattered stones of the
sanctuary, and re-erected the temples levelled in the penal
days. Dr. Nulty became bishop in 1864, and during his episcopate
of thirty-four years spent himself in the service of God and his
people. A profound theologian and ardent student, he put before
his priests a high intellectual standard; at the same time he
did much to overthrow landlordism and to root the people firmly
in their native soil. The population of the Diocese of Meath at
the last census (1901) was 143,164, of whom 132,892 were
Catholics. Since 1871 the population of the diocese has
decreased 27 per cent.; during the same period the non-Catholic
population decreased 35 per cent. There are 144 churches and 66
parishes, 155 secular priests and 12 regulars, 3 monastic houses
of men with 17 members, and 13 convents of nuns with 134
members. St. Finian's College, an imposing structure erected in
Mullingar and opened in 1908, replaces the old building in
Navan, which had held, for more than one hundred years, an
honoured place among the schools of Ireland. The new college,
which cost over -L-340,000, has accommodation for 150 students
and is intended both as a seminary to prepare priests for the
diocese, and to impart a sound Catholic liberal education to
those intended for worldly pursuits. There is a Jesuit novitiate
and college at Tullamore, and a house of Carmelite Fathers at
Moate. The Franciscans of the Irish province have a monastery
and preparatory school at Multyfarnham, near the cathedral town
of Mullingar. The Abbey of Multyfarnham has been in Franciscan
hands since pre-Reformation times, and has witnessed the good
and evil fortunes of the friars in Ireland. The Franciscan
Brothers have a school at Clara, and the Christian Brothers have
a school at Mullingar (500 pupils) and at Clara (200 pupils). At
Rochfortbridge, St. Joseph's Institute for the Deaf and Dumb is
conducted by the Sisters of Mercy. The Loreto Nuns have
educational houses in Navan and Mullingar, which have won
favourable recognition. The Presentation Sisters have
foundations in Mullingar and Rahan, where they have charge of
the primary schools, while the Sisters of Mercy have orphanages
at Navan and Kells, take care of the hospitals in Tullamore,
Trim, Mullingar, Drogheda, and Navan, and at the same time
conduct national schools in the principal towns of the diocese.
The Diocese of Meath, often called the "royal diocese", is rich
in historic associations, pagan and Christian. In Meath was Tara
"of the kings", the palace of the Ard-righ, whither came the
chieftains and princes, the bards and brehons of Erin. The
principal cemetery of the pagan kings of Ireland was at
Brugh-na-Boinne. Competent authorities declare that the
surrounding tumuli are among the oldest in Europe. Close at hand
is Rosnaree, where Cormac Mac Art, the first Christian King of
Ireland, who refused to be buried in pagan Brugh, awaits the
last summons. Uisneach in Westmeath, Tlachtgha, or the Hill of
Ward, and Teltown were celebrated for their royal palaces, their
solemn conventions, their pagan games, and their druidic
ceremonies, and in Christian times were sanctified by the
labours of St. Patrick and St. Brigid. Slane reminds us of St.
Patrick's first Holy Saturday in Ireland, when he lit the
paschal fire, symbolizing the lamp of Faith which has never
since been extinguished. Trim, founded by St. Loman, one of the
first disciples of St. Patrick, still retains in its many ruins
striking evidences of its departed glories. Kells, with its
round tower, its splendid sculptured crosses, and the house of
Columcille, reminds us of that "Dove of the Irish Church", whose
memory is also cherished in his beloved Durrow. Finally, Meath
is the birthplace of the Venerable Oliver Plunket, the martyred
Primate of Armagh, the last victim publicly sacrificed in
England for the Faith.
[ Note: Oliver Plunket was canonized in 1975.]
COGAN, Diocese of Meath (Dublin, 1862); HEALY, Ancient Schools
of Ireland (Dublin, 1890); Irish Ecclesiastical Record (June,
1900); Irish Catholic Directory (Dublin, 1910).
PATRICK E. DUFFY
Diocese of Meaux
Diocese of Meaux
(MELDENSIS.)
Meaux comprises the entire department of Seine and Marne,
suffragan of Sens until 1622, and subsequently of Paris. The
Concordat of 1801 had given to the Diocese of Meaux the
department of Marne, separated from it in 1821 and 1822 by the
establishment of the archiepiscopal See of Reims and the
episcopal See of Chalons. The present Diocese of Meaux is made
up of the greater part of the former Diocese of Meaux, a large
part of the former Diocese of Sens, a part of the former Diocese
of Paris, and a few parishes of the former Dioceses of Troyes,
Soissons and Senlis. Hildegaire, who lived in the ninth century,
says in his "Life of St. Faro" (Burgundofaro), that this bishop
was the twentieth since St. Denis. According to the tradition
accepted by Hildegaire, St. Denis was the first Bishop of Meaux,
and was succeeded by his disciple St. Saintin, who in turn was
succeeded by St. Antoninus; and another saint, named Rigomer,
occupied the See of Meaux at the close of the fifth century. In
876 or 877, Hincmar showed Charles the Bald a document which he
claimed had been transcribed from a very old copy and according
to which St. Antoninus and St. Saintin, disciples of St. Denis,
had brought to Pope Anacletus the account of the martyrdom of
St. Denis, and on their return to Gaul had successively occupied
the See of Meaux. (For these traditions see PARIS.)
According to Mgr. Duchesne, the first Bishop of Meaux
historically known is Medovechus, present at two councils in 549
and 552. Of the bishops of Meaux the following may be mentioned
(following Mgr. Allou's chronology): St. Faro (626-72), whose
Sister St. Fara founded the monastery of Faremoutiers, and who
himself built at Meaux the monastery of St-Croix; St. Hildevert
(672-680); St. Pathus, who died about 684 before being
consecrated; St. Ebrigisilus (end of the seventh century); St.
Gilbert (first half of the eleventh century); Durand de
St-Pourc,ain (1326-1334), commentator on the "Book of
Sentences", known as the "resolutive doctor"; Philippe de Vitry
(1351-1361), friend of Petrarch and author of the "Metamorphoses
d'Ovide Moralisees"; Pierre Fresnel (1390-1409), several times
ambassador of Charles VI; Pierre de Versailles (1439-1446),
charged with important missions by Eugene IV, and who, when
commissioned by Charles VII in 1429 to examine Joan of Arc, had
declared himself convinced of the Divine mission of the Maid of
Orleans; Guillaume Bric,onnet (1516-1534), ambassador of Francis
I to Leo X, and during whose episcopate the Reformation was
introduced by Farel and Gerard Roussel, whom he had personally
called to his diocese for the revival of studies; Cardinal
Antoine du Prat (1534-1535), who had an active share in the
drawing up of the concordat between Francis I and Leo X; the
controversial writer and historian Jean du Tillet (1564-1570);
Louis de Breze, twice bishop, first from 1554 to 1564, then from
1570 to 1589, during whose episcopate the diocese was greatly
disturbed by religious wars; Dominique Seguier (1637-1659), the
first French bishop to establish "ecclesiastical conferences" in
his diocese; the great Bossuet (1681-1704); Cardinal de Bissy
(1705-1737), celebrated for his conflict with the Jansenists; De
Barral (1802-1805), later Grand Almoner of Empress Josephine and
Archbishop of Tours, who took a prominent part in 1810 and 1811
in the negotiations between Napoleon and Pius VII. In 1562 most
of the inhabitants of Meaux had become Protestants, and Joachim
de Montluc, sent by the king, proceeded with rigour against
them. They were still sufficiently powerful in 1567 to attempt
to carry off, in the vicinity of Meaux, Catherine de Medici and
Charles IX; and so for that reason, shortly after St.
Bartholomew's day, Charles IX ordered the massacre of the
Protestants of Meaux. At the chateau of Fontainebleau, built by
Francis I, was held the theological conference of 4 May, 1600,
between the Catholics (Cardinal du Perron, de Thou, Pithou) and
the Calvinists (du Plessis Mornay, Philippe Canaye, Isaac
Casaubon).
A number of saints are found in the history of this diocese: St.
Autharius, a relative of St. Faro, who received St. Columbanus
in his domain at Ussy-sur-Marne, and father of Blessed Ado, who
founded about 630 the two monasteries of Jouarre, and of St.
Ouen who founded the monastery of Rebais in 634 and subsequently
became Bishop of Rouen; the anchorite St. Fefre or Fiacre, and
the missionary St. Chillen, both Irishmen, contemporaries of St.
Faro (first half of the seventh century); St. Aile (Agilus),
monk of Luxeuil who became in 634 the first Abbot of Rebais; St.
Telchilde, died about 660, first Abbess of Jouarre; St.
Aguilberte, second Abbess of Jouarre, a sister of St.
Ebrigisilus (end of seventh century); St. Bathilde, wife of
Clovis II, foundress of the abbey of Chelles, died in 680; St.
Bertille, first Abbess of Chelles, and St. Etheria, first Abbess
of Notre-Dame of Soissons (658), both of them pupils at the
abbey of Jouarre; finally, St. Vincent Madelgaire (or Mauger),
founder of the monasteries of Haumont and Soignies; his wife,
St. Waldetrude, foundress of the monastery of Mons; St.
Aldegonde, sister of St. Waldetrude, first Abbess of Maubeuge;
St. Landry, Abbot of Soignies, claimed by some as a Bishop of
Meaux; St. Adeltrude and St. Malberte, nuns of Maubeuge, the
last three being children of St. Vincent Madelgaire and St.
Waldetrude (seventh century).
Eugene III stayed some days at Meaux in 1147. In 1664 Blessed
Eudes preached for two months at Meaux, Mine Guyon passed the
first six months of 1695 at the Visitation convent of Meaux,
where Bossuet had frequent conferences with her, but failed to
make her abandon her peculiar views. The celebrated Pere
Loriquet (1767-1845) was superior from 1812 to 1814 of the
preparatory seminary of Chaage, in the Diocese of Meaux. The
Paris massacres on 2 and 3 September, 1792, at the prisons of
the Carmes and the Abbaye had their counterpart at Meaux where
seven priests were massacred in prison on 4 September. The Abbey
of Notre Dame de Juilly of the Canons Regular of St. Augustine
was established in 1184, and adopted the rule of the Abbey of
St-Victor of Paris. Cardinal de Joyeuse was abbot from
1613-1615. In 1637 Pere de Condren, Superior of the Oratory,
took possession of it, and in 1638 the house of Juilly became a
royal academy for the education of young men. The new order of
studies approved by Richelieu marked a pedagogical revolution:
the Latin grammars written in Latin were abandoned and French
textbooks were used in the study of the dead languages. The
college became national property in 1791, and was re-purchased
in 1796 by a few Oratorians; in 1828 by Salinis, future Bishop
of Amiens and Scorbiac, chaplain-general of the university; in
1840 by the Abbe Bautain; finally, in 1867, the college returned
into the hands of the new Congregation of the Oratory founded by
the Abbe Petetot. In the salon of the Abbe de Salinis, at
Juilly, was established in December, 1830, the Agence generale
pour la defense de la liberte religieuse. Lamennais resided at
Juilly while editor of "L'Avenir". It was at Juilly, in 1836,
that the future bishop, Gerbet, founded the review "L'Universite
Catholique". Among the students at Juilly in the seventeenth
century were the Marshals de Berwick and de Villars; in the
nineteenth, Mgr de Merode and the famous lawyer, Berryer.
A council convoked in 845 at Meaux by Charles the Bald adopted
important measures for the re-establishment of discipline in the
three ecclesiastical provinces of Sens, Bourges, and Reims.
Other councils were held at Meaux in 962, 1082, 1204, 1229
(ended in Paris), where the Count of Toulouse was reconciled
with the Church; in 1240 a council was held in which the
sentence of excommunication was pronounced against Frederick II
by Joannes of Palestrina, legate of Gregory IX; there was held
an important council in 1523. Four councils were held at Melun,
in 1216, 1225, 1232, 1300. The city of Provins was famous in the
Middle Ages for its burlesque ceremonies (fete de fous, fete do
l'ane, fete des Innocents) held in the church. The cathedral of
St-Etienne de Meaux is a fine Gothic edifice begun about 1170.
The church of Champigny has a magnificent crypt dating from the
thirteenth century. The principal pilgrimages of the diocese
are: Notre Dame do Lagny, dating from 1128; Notre Dame du Chene
de Preuilly, dating from the foundation of the Cistercian Abbey
(1118); Notre Dame du Chene at Crouy-sur-Ourcq, dating from the
beginning of the seventeenth century; Notre Dame de Bon Secours
near Fontainebleau (the pilgrimage was established in 1661 by
d'Auberon, an officer of the great Conde); Notre Dame de la Cave
at Champigny; Notre Dame de Pitie at Verdelot; Notre Dame de
Melun at Melun; Notre Dame du Puy at Sigy. The head of St.
Veronica at Pomponne has long been the object of a pilgrimage,
greatly furthered by the Jesuits in 1670; the cloak (chape) of
St. Martin of which a large portion is preserved at
Bussy-St-Martin, also attracts pilgrims.
Before the application of the Associations Law of 1901 religious
communities were represented in the diocese by the Lazarists,
Oratorians, Little Brothers of Mary, Fathers and Brothers of St.
Mary of Tinchebray, School Brothers of the Christian Doctrine.
Of the congregations of women the following may be mentioned:
the Celestine Sisters, a teaching and nursing order founded in
1839 (mother-house at Provins); the Sisters of St. Louis, a
nursing and teaching order, founded in 1841 by the Abbe Bautain
(mother-house at Juilly), the Carmelites of Meaux, called Carmel
of Pius IX, founded 30 August, 1860. The Benedictines of the
Sacred Heart of Mary, devoted to teaching and contemplation,
restored in 1837 the ancient abbey of Jouarre. The religious
congregations had under their care: 4 creches, 52 day nurseries,
1 orphanage for boys, 15 orphanages for girls, 14 industrial
rooms, 10 houses of mercy, 26 hospitals or asylums, 19 houses
for the care of the sick in their own homes, 1 house of retreat.
In 1908 the Diocese of Meaux had 361,939 inhabitants, 39
parishes, 402 succursal parishes, 8 vicariates.
Gallia Christiana (nova, 1744), VIII, 1596-1670, instrumenta,
547-574; DUCHESNE, Fastes Episcopaux, II, 471-475; DU PLESSIS,
Histoire de l'Eglise de Meaux (2 vols., Meaux, 1731); CARRO,
Histoire de Meaux et du pays Meldois (Meaux, 1865); ALLOU,
Chronique des eveques de Meaux (Meaux, 1876); NERET, Martyrs et
confesseurs de la foi du diocese de Meaux, 1792 1795 (Meaux,
1905); HAMEL, Histoire de l'Eglise et du College de Juilly (3rd
ed., Paris, 1888); THIERCELIN, Le monastere de Jouarre (Paris,
1861); CHEVALIER, Topo-Bibl., 1886-87.
GEORGES GOYAU
Mecca
Mecca
Mecca, the capital of Arabia and the sacred city of the
Mohammedans, is situated in the district of Hijaz about 21DEG30'
N. latitude and 40DEG20' E. longitude, some seventy miles east
of the Red Sea. It lies in a sandy valley surrounded by rocky
hills from two hundred to five hundred feet in height, barren
and destitute of vegetation.
The birthplace of Mohammed and the seat of the famous Kaaba, it
was celebrated even in pre-Islamic times as the chief sanctuary
of the Arabs, and visited by numerous pilgrims and devotees. The
city presents an aspect more pleasing than that of the ordinary
Eastern town, with comparatively wide streets and stone houses,
usually of three stories, and well aired and lighted. The
inhabitants, numbering about 60,000, are with few exceptions
Arabians whose chief employment consists in lodging the pilgrims
and serving the temple, although no inconsiderable amount of
trade is carried on with the Bedouins of the surrounding desert.
Mecca, the seat of government during the reign of the first five
Khalifs, is now governed by a Sharif, chosen by the people from
the Sayyids or the descendants of Mohammed, but under the
immediate authority of the Sultan of Turkey (Hughes, "Dictionary
of Islam", q.v.). Mecca is annually visited by some 80,000
pilgrims from all over the Mohammedan world. On their way the
pilgrims pass through Medina, the second sacred town of Arabia,
and on approaching Mecca they undress, laying aside even their
headgear, and put on aprons and a piece of cloth over the left
shoulder. Then they perform the circuit of the Kaaba, kiss the
Black Stone, hear the sermon on Mount Arafat, pelt Satan with
stones in the valley of Mina, and conclude their pilgrimage with
a great sacrificial feast. In a year or two Mecca will be
reached by the Hijaz Railway already completed as far as Medina
(about eight hundred and fifty miles from Damascus). From Medina
to Mecca the distance is two hundred and eighty miles, and from
Mecca to Damascus about one thousand one hundred and ten miles.
The railway passes through the old caravan route, Damascus,
Mezarib, Maan, Medawara, Tebuk, Madain Saleh, El-Ula, Medina,
and Mecca.
The early history of Mecca is shrouded in obscurity, although
Mohammedan writers have preserved an abundance of legendary lore
according to which the city dates back to Abraham who is said to
have there worshipped the true God. It is also stated that after
the death of Abraham, the inhabitants of Mecca, owing to the
evil influence of the heathen Amalekites, fell into idolatry and
paganism, and the Kaaba itself became surrounded with their
idols. Hundreds of these idols were destroyed by Mohammed on his
entrance into the city at the head of a Moslem army in the
eighth year of the Hejira, or a.d. 629. During the century
before Mohammed, we find the tribe of Quraish in undisputed
possession of the city and the acknowledged guardians of the
Kaaba. The leading events in Mecca at that period, such as the
Abyssinian expedition against Yemen and the utter defeat of
Arabia's army at the hand of the Meccans, have been already
discussed in the article Christianity in Arabia.
See the bibliography appended to the articles Arabia, Mohammed
and Mohammedanism; Burkhardt, Travels in Arabia (London, 1830);
Burton, Personal narrative of a Pilgrimage to El Medina and
Mecca (London, 1857); Hurgronje, Snouck, Mecca, mit Bilder
Atlas, II (The Hague, 1888); Idem, Het Mekkanische Feest
(Leyden, 1888).
Gabriel Oussani
Mechanism
Mechanism
There is no constant meaning in the history of philosophy for
the word Mechanism. Originally, the term meant that cosmological
theory which ascribes the motion and changes of the world to
some external force. In this view material things are purely
passive, while according to the opposite theory (i. e.,
Dynamism), they possess certain internal sources of energy which
account for the activity of each and for its influence on the
course of events; These meanings, however, soon underwent
modification. The question as to whether motion is an inherent
property of bodies, or has been communicated to them by some
external agency, was very often ignored. With a large number of
cosmologists the essential feature of Mechanism is the attempt
to reduce all the qualities and activities of bodies to
quantitative realities, i. e. to mass and motion. But a further
modification soon followed. Living bodies, as is well known,
present at first sight certain characteristic properties which
have no counterpart in lifeless matter. Mechanism aims to go
beyond these appearances. It seeks to explain all "vital"
phenomena as physical and chemical facts; whether or not these
facts are in turn reducible to mass and motion becomes a
secondary question, although Mechanists are generally inclined
to favour such reduction. The theory opposed to this biological
mechanism is no longer Dynamism, but Vitalism or Neo-vitalism,
which maintains that vital activities cannot be explained, and
never will be explained, by the laws which govern lifeless
matter. As Mechanism professes to furnish a complete system of
the world, its extreme partisans apply it to psychical
manifestations and even to social phenomena; but here it is at
best only tentative and the result very questionable. Its
advocates merely connect, more or less thoroughly, psychological
and social facts with the general laws or leading hypotheses of
biology. It is preferable, therefore, in the present state of
our knowledge, to disregard these features of mechanistic
doctrine, which are certainly of a provisional character. In a
word then, Mechanism in its various forms shows a tendency to
interpret phenomena of a higher order in terms of the Lower and
less complex, and to carry this reduction down to the simplest
attainable forms, i. e. to those quantitative realities which we
call mass and motion. Psychology and sociology derive their
explanation from biology; biology derives its explanation from
the physical and chemical sciences, while these in turn borrow
their explanation from mechanics. The science of mechanics
becomes by a very simple process a particular phase of
mathematical analysis, so that the ideal of Mechanism is
Mathematism, that is to say, the representation of all phenomena
by mathematical equations. Hence it is plain that Mechanism
tends to eliminate from science and from reality all
"qualitative" aspects, all "forms" and "ends". We shall first
state the arguments brought forward in support of the theory,
and then subject it to criticism.
I. ARGUMENTS
(1) Modem Mechanism, which unquestionably goes back to
Descartes, arose, it is said, from a legitimate reaction against
the errors of decadent Scholasticism. The latter had abused the
old theory of forms and latent qualities. Whenever a phenomenon
called for explanation, it was furnished by endowing the
substance with a new quality; and, as Moliere jestingly puts it,
"the poppy made one sleep because it has the sleep-inducing
property". Each thing was what it was by virtue of an
appropriate form; man by the human form, a pebble by its pebble
form; and each thing performed its characteristic functions by
some "virtue". Thus, it is alleged, all explanations fell into
tautology, and science was doomed a priori to pursue a
monotonous round in complete sterility. If Mechanism did nothing
more than deliver us from this absurd logomachy, it would
possess at least a negative value, emphasizing by its opposition
the weakness of qualitative explanations.
(2) The general laws of applied logic are cited in favour of the
principles of Mechanism. The scientific fact is not the initial
fact of observation. The scientist is not satisfied with seeing,
he must understand; and the only way to understand is to
explain. Now there is but one conceivable method of explaining
the new reality; the things which are not understood must be
reduced to known antecedents. The barrenness of formal and final
causes is, according to the Mechanists, at once manifest. The
form is what makes a thing what it is, but the fact or thing
which is to be explained does not become intelligible by reason
of its being what it is. Therefore, to allege the form as an
explanation is to explain a thing by itself. The interpretations
based on "ends" are not more productive of scientific results.
Aside from the anthropomorphic illusions to which such
interpretations are liable, the ends help us no better than the
forms to avoid tautology. The end of a thing is only the action
towards which it tends, the term of its development. But this
action and this term can be known only through further
observation; they constitute new facts which require an
explanation of their own. We learn nothing from them as to the
nature of the original thing; they do not tell us how or by what
internal factors it performs its action or reaches its term. To
explain the eye by declaring that it was made to see, is to
state that it is an eye but nothing more. To understand the eye
it is necessary to know by what internal structure, and under
what sort of stimulation the organ performs its visual
functions.
Hence, say the Mechanists, all ends and final causes must be
banished from scientific systematizations. The unknown can be
explained only by reduction, to the known, the new by reduction
to the anterior, the complex by reduction to the simple. Now, if
we look for the only genuinely scientific explanation, we cannot
stop until we reach mass and motion. Such indeed is human
intelligence, that we first grasp the most general and the
simplest realities, and we grasp these the best. Take for
example the very general phenomenon of life. To explain it by a
vital force or principle would simply be not to explain it at
all. We must, if we would understand life, reduce it to
something which is not life, to something simpler and better
known. We must therefore, the Mechanist asserts, have recourse
to the physical and chemical phenomena, and our understanding of
life is measured by the possibilities of this reduction. It may
be that we have not explained by this method everything
connected with vital phenomena, since their reduction to
physical laws is as yet incomplete: but this does not justify
the assumption of a latent quality; it only means that our
biological knowledge is far from perfect. Chemical phenomena and
physical qualities must likewise be accounted for. Under pain of
fruitless tautology, we must reduce them to that which is
already known. But we find here only quantitative matter and
motion, realities which may be reduced to mathematical formulae,
thus bringing us to a practically pure idea of quantity. Beyond
this we cannot go, for if we suppress quantity our mind loses
all hold on the real. It apparently follows that by the very
requirements of logic, Mechanism alone has an indisputable claim
to a place in the realm of science. Any other system, the
Mechanists claim, must necessarily be provisional, tautological,
and therefore misleading.
(3) There is another consideration which is said to outweigh all
reasoning a priori: Mechanism succeeds. Its explanations, we are
told, are clear and precise to a degree unattainable in any
other theory, and they satisfy the mind with a synthetic view of
reality. They alone have delivered us from an intolerable
pluralism in the cosmic system, secured that unity of thought
which seems to be an imperative need of our mind, and brought
under control phenomena which had defied all analysis and which
had to be accepted as primary data. Furthermore, the doctrines
of Mechanism have enabled us to anticipate observation and to
make forecasts which facts in nature have actually confirmed.
Herein is a guarantee which, for the Mechanists, is well worth
all theoretical proofs. Such, in the main, is the line of
reasoning followed by the adherents of Mechanism. That it is not
conclusive will appear quite clearly from the following
examination into its value.
II. CRITICISM
It cannot be denied that mechanistic ideas have played a useful
and creditable part in science. Whatever one may think of the
Cartesian revolution in the realm of philosophy, it has
certainly stimulated research in the scientific field. This
service cannot be overlooked, even though one be convinced of
the inability of Mechanism to provide us with a formula of the
universe. It is none the less true, however, that Mechanism as a
cosmic theory must be rejected.
(1) First of all, there is in the progress of natural phenomena
a fundamental fact which Mechanism is unable to account for, the
irreversibility of cosmic events. All motion is reversible: when
a moving object has covered the distance from A to B, we at once
understand that it can go back over the path from B to A. If,
therefore, everything that happens is motion, it is not clear
why events in nature should not at times retrace their march,
why the fruit should not return to the flower, the flower to the
bud, the tree itself to the plant and finally to the seed. True,
it is shown that this reversion, even in the mechanistic
hypothesis, is exceedingly improbable, but it would not be
impossible. Now such reversion, in the case of certain phenomena
at least, is more than improbable; it is inconceivable, for
instance, that our limbs should be bruised before the fall which
causes the bruise. This irreversibility of cosmic processes is
undoubtedly, as the Mechanists themselves admit, the chief
difficulty against their system.
(2) When we enter within the field of biology, the difficulties
against Mechanism multiply. Granted that this doctrine has
served as a guide to many successful investigators, what have
they attained in the last analysis? They have not advanced one
step nearer to the "formula of life." All the biological facts
so far examined and understood have been brought into the
category of physico-chemical activities -- indeed, this might
have been expected; but that is not life. A particular phase is
isolated for examination, and the characteristic mark of life is
thereby destroyed. For that which characterizes life
experimentally considered, is the unity, the solidarity of all
these particular activities; all converge to one common purpose,
the constitution of the living being in its undeniable
individuality. Its explanation surely cannot be found in
disintegrating it by analysis. The conflict with Mechanism has
now been carried into the experimental field, and the last few
years have yielded an ever increasing number of observations
which seem to defy all mechanistic reduction. These are chiefly
concerned with abnormal conditions which are brought about
during the first stages of individual development. Sea urchin
embryos, taken when they have progressed far enough to permit
the determination of the normal growth of each part, and divided
into two or three segments, produce as many animals as there
were artificial segments. Must not the conclusion be that there
exists in each embryo a simple principle -- an entelechy as
Driesch says, using Aristotle's term -- which is one in the
whole organism and is entire within each part? Is not this the
very contrary of Mechanism which claims to reduce everything to
the movements (interwoven of course, but really independent) of
the parts? It is not surprising, therefore, that the adherents
of neo-Vitalism should now be numerous, and that their ranks are
growing fast.
(3) But it is principally before logical and philosophical
criticism, that Mechanism seems to give way completely. Those
very ideas on the nature of explanation, according to which it
is attempted to reduce all reality to terms of the supposed
primary notions of mass and motion, preclude Mechanism from ever
attaining the whole of reality. The present must be reduced to
the past, the new to that which is already known, the complex to
the more simple; but this original datum remains, that the
complex and the simple are not identical, that the new fact is
not the fact which was already known. If we suppose all that was
contained in the complex to have been reduced by analysis to
simple elements already known, we have still to explain their
combination, their unity in the complex; and it is just these
that have been destroyed by the explanatory analysis. Given that
there is something to explain, something unknown, it is clear
that there is something beyond the known and the old, and there
must inevitably be some principle which moulds into unity the
numerous elements, and which either for the species or for the
individual, may in a very broad sense be called the "form".
Explanations based on analysis do not discover the form, because
they begin by destroying it. It may be said, in a particular but
entirely acceptable sense, that "form" explains nothing, because
to explain is to reduce, and form is by its very nature
irreducible. But from this to the denial of form is a very far
cry. The scholastics of the decadent period erred in regarding
forms as explanatory principles, but Mechanism distorts the
reality by reducing it to its "matter", by ignoring its specific
and its individual unity. For the same reason, the mechanical
interpretations of the dynamic aspect of things, that is to say
of cosmic evolution, prove futile. It is of course instructive
in the highest degree to know what previous state of the
universe accounts for the present state of things; but to look
on those anterior efficient causes of things as the adequate
representations of their effects, is to lose sight of the fact
that these latter are effects, while the former were causes; the
consequence is an absolute "statism" and a denial of all
causality.
Similar observations might be made on the subject of final
causes. The meaning itself of the word finality has undergone
singular changes since Aristotle and the thirteenth century. Let
it suffice to note that finality has its basis in the
intellectual nature of an efficient cause, or in the internal
tendency of a form viewed from the standpoint of activity, of
dynamism. The decadent Scholastics weakened their position when
they relied on forms and ends only as means of scientific
explanations strictly so called, while Mechanists are clearly in
error when they seek in these same scientific explanations for
an account of reality to the exclusion of forms and ends. More
might be said of the manifest inadequacy of quantitative images,
of cosmological Mathematism which reduces all continuity to
discontinuity and all time to coincidences without duration, and
of the anti-mechanistic reaction which asserts itself under the
name of Energism, and with which the researches of Ostwald and
of Duhem are associated. But these are complex and general
problems. We may now resume and draw our conclusions.
III. CONCLUSION
Mechanism is a cosmological theory which holds that all
phenomena in nature are reducible to simple phenomena in such a
manner that the ultimate realities of the material world are
mass and motion. This system has rendered signal service; it
exhibits in great clearness the material causes or phenomena;
indeed, this explains why its formulae may, in exceptional
cases, provide a formula applicable to some fact as yet unknown.
But it is impossible to regard Mechanism as a real
representation of our universe. It wrought its own ruin when it
claimed a scope and a significance which are denied it by the
reality of things and the exigencies of logic.
All general treatises on philosophy give at least a few pages to
Mechanism. See also: MERCIER, Psychologie, I (Louvain, 1905);
NYS, Cosmologie (2nd ed., Louvain, 1906); TILMANN PESCH, Die
grossen Weltraetsel (Freiburg, 1907); GEMELLI, L'Enigma della
vita e i nuovi orizzonti della biologia (Florence, 1910);
OSTWALD, Vorlesungen ueber Naturphilosophie (Leipzig, 1905);
DRIESCH, Der Vitalismus als Gesch. u. als Lehre (Leipzig, 1905);
DE MUNNYNCK, Les bases psychologiques du Mecanisme in Revue des
sciences philos. et theol. (Kain, Belgium, 1907); BRUNHES, La
Degradation de l'Energie (Paris, 1908).
M.P. DE MUNNYNCK
Mechitar
Mechitar
(MECHITHAR, MEKHITAR, MCHITAR or MOCHTOR, a word which means
"Comforter")
Mechitar is the name taken by Peter Manuk, founder of the
religious order of Mechitarists, when he became a monk. A native
of Sebaste (Sivas) in Lesser Armenia, born 7 February, 1676, of
parents reputed noble, he was left until the age of fifteen in
the care of two pious nuns. Then he entered the cloister of the
Holy Cross near Sebaste, and the same year (1691), was ordained
deacon by Bishop Ananias. Shortly afterwards, impelled by his
thirst for knowledge, he left the cloister-- putting off the
habit or infringing his vows (the Eastern monk could, for a
proper reason, lawfully leave the enclosure) and set forth, in
the company of a doctor of that city, for Etchmiadzin, the
capital of Greater Armenia, persuaded that it was the centre of
civilization and the home of all the sciences. During the
journey he met with a European missionary and a fellow Armenian,
whose accounts of the wonders of the West changed the course of
his life. Stirred with an admiration of Western culture and the
desire to introduce it among his countrymen, he wandered from
place to place, earning a scanty living by teaching. After
eighteen months he returned to Sebaste where he remained for
some time, still ambitious to study Western civilization. Even
then he had conceived the idea of founding a religious
society--, doubtless, by the well-intentioned but long since
suppressed association of the "United Brothers"-- would labour
to introduce Western ideas and Western influence into Armenia.
This would imply a formal reunion of the Armenian Church with
Rome, and there would be an end of that wavering between
Constantinople and Rome, so injurious to the spiritual and
intellectual welfare of his country. At Sebaste, he devoted
himself to the reading of the Armenian sacred writers and the
Syrian and Greek Fathers in translations, and, after a vain
attempt to reach Europe from Alexandria, he was ordained priest
(1696) in his own city, and (1699) received the title and staff
of doctor (Vartabed) . Then he began to preach, and went to
Constantinople with the intention of founding an Armenian
College. He continued his preaching there, generally in the
church of St. George, gathered some disciples around him, and
distinguished himself by his advocacy of union with the Holy
See. Serious trouble ensued with a violent persecution of the
Catholics by the Turks excited by the action of Count Ferrol,
minister of Louis XIV at Stamboul, who carried off to Paris the
anti-Catholic Patriarch of Constantinople. Naturally, the
fervour of Mechitar and his disciples in the Catholic cause, and
the success of their preaching singled them out for special
attention. The two patriarchs, urged by a schismatic, Avedik,
led the attack. Mechitar wisely dismissed his disciples and
himself took refuge in a Capuchin convent under French
protection. Pursued by his enemies, he escaped to the Morea,
thence to Venetian territory, finding shelter in a Jesuit house.
He attributed his safety to our Blessed Lady, under whose
protection, on 8 Sept., the Feast of her Nativity, he had
solemnly placed himself and his society.
The Venetians kindly gave him some property at Modon (1701),
where he built a church and convent, and laid the foundations of
the Mechitarist Order. Clement XI gave it formal approval in
1712, and appointed Mechitar Abbot. Three years later war broke
out between Venice and the Porte, and the new abbey was in
jeopardy. The abbot, leaving seventy of his monks behind,
crossed over to Venice with sixteen companions with the
intention of beginning a second foundation. It was well that he
did so for the Venetians were defeated and the Morea was
regained by the Turks. Modon was taken, the monastery destroyed
and the monks dispersed. The house rented at Venice proved too
small and Mechitar exerted all his influence to obtain the gift
of San Lazzaro, an island about two miles south-east of the
city, not far from the Lido. His request granted, he restored
the old ruined church, and a second time built a monastery for
his monks. This establishment has remained undisturbed in the
hands of the Mechitarists to the present day. At S. Lazzaro he
devised many schemes for the regeneration of his country. An
accusation brought against him at Rome-- a personal charge but
one connected with the labours undertaken by the order-- in a
better understanding with the Holy See, and the personal
friendship of the pope. He lived at S. Lazzaro for thirty years,
busy with his printing-press and his literary labours, and died
at the age of seventy-four, on 16 April, 1749. Since his death
he is always spoken of by his children as the Abbas Pater, Abbai
hairm (see MECHITARISTS).
The most important of his literary works are the following:
"Commentary on the Gospel of St. Matthew" (1737); "Commentary on
Ecclesiasticus" (Venice); "Armenian Grammar"; "Armenian Grammar
of the Vulgar Tongue"; "Armenian Dictionary" (1744, and in two
volumes, Venice, 1749-69); "Armenian Catechism", both in the
literary and vulgar tongues; "A Poem on the Blessed Virgin";
"Armenian Bible" (1734).
Vita dell' abbate Mechitar (Venice, 1810); La vie du serviteur
de Dieu Mechitar, fondateur de l'ordre des moines armeniens
Mechitaristes de Venise, ainsi que La vie des abbes generaux et
des moines les plus celebres de la congregation (Venice, 1901).
J.C. ALMOND.
Mechitarists
Mechitarists
Armenian Benedictines, founded by Mechitar in 1712. In its
inception the order was looked upon merely as an attempted
reform of Eastern monachism. P. Filippo Bonanni, S.J., writes at
Rome, in 1712 when the order received its approval, of the
arrival of P. Elias Martyr and P. Joannes Simon, two Armenian
monks sent by Mechitar to Pope Clement XI to offer His Holiness
the most humble subjection of himself and convent (Ut ei se cum
suis religiosis humillime subjiceret). There is no mention, at
the moment, of the Benedictine rule. The monks, such as St.
Anthony instituted in Egypt (quos St. Antonius in Aegypto
instituerat), have begun a foundation in Modon with Mechitar
(Mocht`ar) as abbot.
After two years' noviceship, they take the usual vows, with a
fourth in addition -- "to give obedience to the preceptor or
master deputed by their superior to teach them the dogmas of the
Catholic Faith". Many of them vow themselves also to missionary
work in Armenia, Persia, and Turkey, where they live on alms and
wear as a badge, beneath the tunic, a cross of red cloth, on
which are certain letters signifying their desire to shed their
blood for the Catholic Faith. They promise on oath to work
together in harmony so that they may the better win the
schismatics back to God. They elect an abbot for life, who has
the power to dismiss summarily any of his monks who should prove
disorderly. They wear the beard, Oriental fashion, and have a
black habit -- tunic, cloak and hood. In the engraving attached
to the description, the Mechitarist would be undistinguishable
from a regular hermit of St. Augustine, except for his beard.
When however, Pope Clement XI gave them his approval, it was as
monks under the rule of St. Benedict, and he appointed Mechitar
the first abbot. This was a great innovation; nothing less than
the introduction of Western monasticism into the East. There, up
to this time a monk undertook no duties but to fill his place in
the monastery. He admitted no vocation but to save his soul in
the cloister. He had, in theory, at least, broken off all
relations with the outside world. He had no idea of making
himself useful to mankind, or of any good works whatsoever save
his choir duties, his prayers, his fastings, and the monastic
observance. He belonged to no religious order but was simply a
monk. Now, as a Benedictine, he would be expected to devote
himself to some useful work and take some thought of his
neighbour. It is clear, from P. Bonanni's description, that
Mechitar and his monks wished this change and had already
adopted the Western idea of the monk's vocation. The adoption of
the Benedictine rule, therefore, was merely a recognition of
their desire to devote themselves to apostolic work among their
schismatic brethren, to instruct their ignorance, excite their
devotion and bring them back into the communion of the one true
Catholic and Apostolic Church. And it was also a security that
they would not afterwards lapse into the apathy and inactivity
associated in the Eastern mind with the life of the cloister. It
is not quite accurate to speak of them as a Benedictine
"Congregation", though it is their customary description. They
are a new "Order" of monks living under the rule of St.
Benedict, as distinct from the parent order as the Cistercians,
Camaldolese, Silvestrines, or Olivetans. Hence we do not find
them classed among the numerous congregations of the Benedictine
order.
Missionaries, writers, and educationists, devoted to the service
of their Armenian brethren wherever they might be found, such
were and are these Benedictines of the Eastern Church. Their
subjects usually enter the convent at an early age, eight or
nine years old, receive in it their elementary schooling, spend
about nine years in philosophical and theological study, at the
canonical age of twenty-five, if sufficiently prepared, are
ordained priests by their bishop-abbot, and are then employed by
him in the various enterprises of the order. First, there is the
work of the mission -- not the conversion of the heathen, but
priestly ministry to the Armenian communities settled in most of
the commercial centres of Europe. With this is joined, where
needed and possible, the apostolate of union with Rome. Next
there is the education of the Armenian youth and, associated
with this, the preparation and publication of good and useful
Armenian literature.
The parent abbey is that of St. Lazzaro at Venice; next in
importance is that at Vienna, founded in 1810; there is a large
convent and college for lay-students at Padua, the legacy of a
pious Armenian who died at Madras; in the year 1846 another rich
benefactor, Samuel Morin, founded a similar establishment at
Paris. Other houses are in Austria-Hungary, Russia, Persia and
Turkey -- fourteen in all, according to the latest statistics,
with one hundred and fifty-two monks, the majority of whom are
priests. Not a great development for an order two hundred years
old; but its extension is necessarily restricted because of its
exclusive devotion to persons and things Armenian. Amongst their
countrymen the influence of the monks has been not only
directive in the way of holiness and true service to God and His
Church, but creative of a wholesome national ambition and
self-respect. Apostles of culture and progress, they may be
said, with strict justice, to have preserved from degradation
and neglect the language and literature of their country, and in
so doing, have been the saviours of the Armenian race.
Individually, the monks are distinguished by their linguistic
accomplishments, and the Vienna establishment has attracted
attention by the institution of a Literary Academy, which
confers honorary membership without regard to race or religion.
In every one of their many undertakings their founder, Mechitar,
personally showed them the way. To him they owe the initiative
in the study of the Armenian writings of the fourth and fifth
centuries, which has resulted in the development and adoption of
a literary 1anguage, nearly as distinct from the vulgar tongue
as Latin is from Italian. Thus the modem Armenian remains in
touch with a distinguished and inspiring past, and has at his
service a rich and important literature which otherwise would
have been left, unknown or unheeded, to decay. Mechitar, with
his Armenian "Imitation" and "Bible", began that series of
translations of great books, continued unceasingly during two
centuries, and ranging from the early Fathers of the Church and
the works of St. Thomas of Aquin (one of their first labours) to
Homer and Virgil and the best known poets and historians of
later days.
At one period, in connexion with their Vienna house, there
existed an association for the propagation of good books, which
is said to have distributed nearly a million volumes, and
printed and published six new works each year. To him also they
owe the guidance of their first steps in exegesis -- the branch
of learning in which they have won most distinction -- and the
kindred studies of the Liturgy and the religious history of
their country. At S. Lazzara he founded the printing press from
which the most notable of their productions have been issued,
and commenced there the collection of Armenian manuscripts for
which their library has become famous. To any but members of the
order the history of the Mechitarists has been uneventful,
because of the quiet, untiring plodding along ancient,
traditional paths, and the admirable fidelity to the spirit and
ideals of their founder (see MECHITAR).
It has been principally by means of the Mechitarists'
innumerable periodicals, pious manuals, Bibles, maps,
engravings, dictionaries, histories, geographies and other
contributions to educational and popular literature, that they
have done good service to the Armenian Church and nation.
Following are the most valuable of their contributions to the
common cause of learning. First, there is the recovery, in
ancient Armenian translations, of some lost works of the Fathers
of the Church. Among them may be noted "Letters (thirteen) of
St. Ignatius of Antioch" and a fuller and more authentic
"History of the Martyrdom of St. Ignatius"; some works of St.
Ephrem the Syrian, notably a sort of "Harmony of the Gospels"
and a "Commentary on the Epistles of St. Paul"; an exceptionally
valuable edition of "Eusebius's History". The publication of
these works is due to the famous Mechitarist Dom J. B. Aucher,
who was assisted in the last of them by Cardinal Mai. To Aucher
also we are indebted for a German translation of the "Armenian
Missal" Tuebingen, 1845) and "Dom Johannis philosophi Ozniensis
Armeniorum Catholici (a.d., 718) Opera" (Venice, 1534). Two
original historical works may also be noted: "The History of
Armenia", by P. Michel Tschamtschenanz (1784-6) and the "Quadro
della storia letteraria di Armenia" by Mgr. Pl. Sukias Somal
(Venice, 1829).
TSCHAMTSCHENANZ, Compendiose notizie sulla congregazione dei
monachi Armeni Mechitaristici (Venice, 1819) NEUMANN, Essai
d'une histoire de la Litterature armenienne (Leipzig, 1836);
KALEMKIAR, Une esquisse de l'activite litteraire-typographique
de la congregation mechitariste `a Vienne; GOSCHLER,
Dictionnaire encyclopedique de la Theol. Cathol., XIV, Art.
Mechitaristes.
J. C. ALMOND.
Archdiocese of Mechline
Mechlin
(Lat. MECHLINIA; Fr. MALINES; MECHLINIENSIS).
Archdiocese comprising the two Belgian provinces of Antwerp and
Brabant. This diocese derives its present configuration from the
French Concordat of 1801. The ecclesiastical province of Mechlin
is coextensive with the Belgian Kingdom (suffragan bishoprics:
Tournai, Liege, Namur, Gand, Bruges); it extended to the Rhine
under Napoleon I. The city of Mechlin, prior to 1559, belonged
to the deanery of Brussels and to the archdeaconry of the same
name in the diocese of Cambrai. Its importance ecclesiastically
was due to the ancient Chapter of Canons of the collegiate
church of St. Rombaut. Paul IV, by his bull "Super universi
orbis ecclesias" (12 May, 1559) created a new hierarchy in the
Netherlands composed of three metropolitan (Mechlin, Cambrai,
Utrecht) and fifteen episcopal sees. The Archbishop of Mechlin
was raised to the dignity of primate by the Constitutions of
Pius IV in 1560 and 1561. The Christian Faith was zealously
preached in the present diocese during the seventh and eighth
centuries. It is known that Antwerp was visited by St. Eligius,
Bishop of Tournai (d. 660), and by St. Amand, the Apostle of
Flanders and Bishop of Maestricht (d. 679). The latter's
successors in the see of Tongres-Maestricht-Liege, St. Lambert
(d. about 700) and St. Hubert (d. 727) are said to have visited
Mechlin and Brabant. This evangelical work was followed up by
the Anglo-Saxon missionaries St. Willibrord (d. 738) and St.
Rumold or Rombaut (d. about 775). St. Rombaut was martyred at
Mechlin, and became the city's patron saint, and subsequently
the patron of the whole diocese. Among the saints of this
diocese are several members of Pepin of Landen's family, his
widow St. Itta, foundress of the Abbey of Nivelles, his
daughters, St. Gertrude (d. 659) and St. Begga (d. 698); the two
sisters St. Gudule (d. 712) and St. Rainelde; in the ninth
century St. Libert of Mechlin and St. Guidon of Anderlecht; St.
Wivine, foundress of the Benedictine abbey of Grand Bigard (d.
1170); St. Albert of Louvain, Prince Bishop of Liege and martyr
(d. 1192); St. Marie d'Orignies (d. 1232); St. Lutgard (d.
1246), and Blessed Alice (d. 1250), both Cistercian nuns, the
former in Aywieres, the latter at la Cambre; St. Boniface of
Brussels, Bishop of Lausanne (d. 1265); Blessed Jean de
Ruysbroeck, an Augustinian monk of Groenendael, because of his
mystical writings known as the "divine and admirable doctor" (d.
1381); several priests put to death by the Calvinists at Gorcum
(1572); the Jesuits, St. John Berchmans of Diest, patron of
student youth (d. 1621), and Venerable Leonard Leys (Lessius) of
Brecht, renowned for his piety and his theological works (d.
1623).
It was at the beginning of the twelfth century that Tanchelm, a
native of Zealand, became known, chiefly in Antwerp, for his
violent attacks on the hierarchy, and the Sacraments, especially
the Holy Eucharist. He shared the pernicious errors of the
Adamites, and gave an example of the worst kind of debauchery.
Toward the middle of the century, Bishop Nicolas of Cambrai
excommunicated Jonas, one of the promoters of Catharism in
Brabant. A little later numerous Beghards and Beguines fell into
the errors of the sect known as the Brothers of the Free Spirit.
To this sect also belonged the nun, Sister Hadewijc (Hedwig) or
Bloemardine, who gained numerous partisans in Brussels. Her
writings were refuted by Jean de Ruysbroeck. Bloemardine died
about 1336, but her followers lived on, and as late as about
1410 Pierre d'Ailly, Bishop of Cambrai, was compelled to take
measures against them. The Black Plague of 1349 gave rise to the
processions of Flagellants. These hailed from Germany and
traversed the country practicing the mortification from which
their name has arisen. The ecclesiastical authorities were
obliged to intervene on behalf of the Jews detested by the
Flagellants. On the other hand, religious sentiment manifested
itself in numerous monastic institutions. Afflighem, the
principal Benedictine abbey, dates from 1086. The people of
Antwerp, whom Tanchelm had fanaticized, were brought back by St.
Norbert to a Christian mode of life. Soon arose in Brabant many
Premonstratensian abbeys: St. Michel at Antwerp (1124),
Tongerloo (1128), le Parc near Louvain (1129), Heylissem (1130),
Grimberghen (1131), Averbode (1132), Dieligem and Postel (1140).
Among other abbeys for men may be mentioned: the Benedictine
abbeys of Vlierbeek (1125); the noble abbey of St. Gertrude at
Louvain, belonging to the Augustinian canons; the Cistercian
abbeys of Villers (1147) and of St. Bernard (1237). Some of the
numerous colleges of Austin Canons are: St. Jacques sur
Caudenberg at Brussels, Hanswijck at Mechlin, Corssendonck,
Groenendael, Rougecloitre and Septfontaines, all three in the
forest of Soignes. In most places of consequence Augustinians,
Franciscans, Carmelites and Dominicans were established. The
military orders were represented at the Teutonic Commandery of
Pitzemburg in Mechlin and in Becquevoort. The leading abbeys for
women were: Grand Bigard and Cortenberg (Benedictines); la
Cambre, Roosendael, Nazareth (Cistercians). The semi-monastic
institution of the Beguinages (q. v.), small settlements in the
heart of cities or just outside city walls, is a peculiar
feature of religious life in the Netherlands. They were once
numerous (the number of Beguines who went forth from Mechlin to
greet Charles the Bold, on the occasion of his joyful entry in
1467, was 900), and still endure, though much reduced in
numbers, at Mechlin, Antwerp, Louvain, Diest, Lierre, Turnhout,
Hoogstraeten and Herenthals. The increase of the secular clergy
and its improved material conditions caused the chapters of
Canons to grow in number, and eventually the collegiate churches
of the diocese reached a total of twenty. Public instruction was
conducted by parochial and chapter schools. Finally Martin V, by
his bull of 9 December, 1425, erected a university at Louvain.
At the close of the Middle Ages, it is well known, both faith
and morals suffered a notable decay. More or less rightly, Jean
Pupper de Goch (d. 1475), superior of the Thabor Convent at
Mechlin, has been styled the precursor of Luther, who soon found
numerous partisans in the diocese, especially at Antwerp where
his Augustinian brethren declared in his favour. Protestantism,
though vigorously opposed by Charles V, was again menacing at
the end of his reign, when Lutheranism gave way to Calvinism.
The creation in 1559 of new sees, though an indispensable
measure, brought about a coalition of all discontented parties.
Philip II, by removing the first Archbishop of Mechlin, Cardinal
de Granvelle, deprived the Catholic and monarchical cause of its
ablest champion, and thereby hastened the impending revolution.
In 1556 the iconoclastic mob put to death both religious and
priests, and sacked the churches and monasteries. Disorder
continued until the advent of the Archduke Albert and Isabella.
The people remained loyal to Catholicism and the University of
Louvain proved a valiant defender, though Protestant theories
exercised at the university a certain influence particularly on
Baius and Jansenius. The Archbishop of Mechlin, Jacques Boonen
(1621-55), evaded the publication of the constitution "In
eminenti", by which Urban VIII condemned the "Augustinus"; he
was even temporarily suspended by Innocent X. Boonen's
submission did not put an end to the Jansenistic quarrels in the
diocese. Oratorians, brought in by him, were inclined to
rigorism. They opened colleges for the education of youth and
found themselves both in this field, and in their Jansenistic
views, in rivalry with the Jesuits already active in
anti-Protestant controversy. The partisans and the adversaries
of Jansenius took sides at once with one or other of the
conflicting parties. The firmness of the archbishops at
Precipiano (1690-1711) and of Cardinal d'Alsace (1715-59)
repelled Jansenism, which endured however in Josephinism and
Febronianism. Joseph II suppressed many convents (1783), and
created the General Seminary of Louvain (1786), the doctrines of
which were condemned by Cardinal de Frankenberg (1759-1801).
Persecution broke out afresh in the wake of the French
Revolution; Catholic worship was abolished, churches were
pillaged, a multitude of ecclesiastics exiled, among them
Cardinal de Frankenberg. The anti-Concordat schism of the
Stevenists arose under Napoleon Bonaparte. Later, King William
revived the General Seminary under the name of Philosophical
College, but met with as much opposition as Joseph II. The
Belgian Revolution of 1830 freed the Church from these fetters.
For the later history of Mechlin see BELGIUM. The following
archbishops of Mechlin were made cardinals: Antoine Perrenot de
Granvella, first archbishop (1560-83) and a remarkable statesman
(q. v.); Thomas Philippe d'Alsace (1716-59); Henri de
Frankenberg (1759-1801); Engelbert Sterckx (1832-67); Victor
Auguste Dechamps, theologian and pulpit orator (q. v.)
(1867-83); Pierre Lambert Goossens (1884- 1906); Desire Joseph
Mercier (1906-), the chief originator of the neo-scholastic
movement in Belgium.
Religious monuments: numerous edifices especially of Gothic
style (Roman: St. Germain at Tirlemont, St. Gertrude at
Nivelles). At Mechlin is the metropolitan church of St. Rombaut
(thirteenth and fourteenth centuries), with a tower 318 feet
high. There is also Notre Dame, and St. Pierre (Jesuit style).
Principal other edifices: churches of Lierre, Hoogstraeten,
Tirlemont, Hal, Diest; and the ruins of the Abbey of Villers,
the most striking monastic ruins in Belgium. The ornamentation
has suffered greatly from the disorders of the sixteenth and
eighteenth centuries, particularly the organ gallery at Lierre,
the tabernacle at Leau, the tombs at Hoogstraeten and the
stained glasses in Lierre and Hoogstraeten. Of the paintings
still preserved, many belong to the Antwerp School. At Mechlin
there are works of Rubens in the churches of Notre Dame and St.
Jean. See ANTWERP, BRUSSELS, LOUVAIN. Pilgrimages: St. Sang at
Hoogstraeten, St. Sauveur at Haekendover (Tirlemont), Notre Dame
at Montaigu, at Hal, at Hanswyck (Mechlin). Population (1909):
2,450,680 inhabitants; 745 parishes; 51 deaneries; one
theological seminary; 3 petits seminaires; 24 episcopal
colleges; 108 convents for men, and 726 for women.
The "Vie Diocesaine" is a monthly periodical founded in 1907.
The "Theologia Mechliniensis" fundamental and sacramental
theology, with treatises on virtues, indulgences, and reserved
cases fills ten volumes; notable also are the "Scripture
Commentary" of Ceulemans (nine volumes) on the Psalms and New
Testament, and the work of Van der Stappen (five volumes) on the
Liturgy.
Gallia Christiana, V (Paris, 1731); VAN GESTEL, Historia sacra
et profana archiepiscopatus Mechliniensis (La Haye, 1725);
CLAESSENS, Histoire des archeveque de Malines, II (Louvain,
1881); GODENNE, Malines jadis et aujourd'hui (Mechlin, 1908);
FOPPENS, Historia episcopatus Antverpiensis (Brussels, 1717).
A. KEMPENEER
Johann Mechtel
Johann Mechtel
Chronicler; b. 1562 at Pfalzel near Trier (Germany); d. after
1631, perhaps as late as 1653 at Trier. He is often named
Pfalzel after his native town where he first studied and then
went to the university at Trier, conducted by the Jesuits, where
the historian Christopher Brote acquired a lasting influence
over him. After his ordination (about 1587), he was appointed
pastor at Eltz, near Limburg; in 1592 he became canon at Limburg
and as such administered for two years the troublesome parish of
Camberg. In 1604 he was appointed dean, but soon got into
difficulties with his canons and finally, by request of the
elector of Trier in order to restore peace, he resigned, and
accepted the canonry at St. Paulinus in Trier. In Limburg as
well as in Trier he studied history assiduously and carefully,
and conscientiously collected documents and records, as well as
inscriptions on monuments. Many of his sources are now lost
therefore his works almost possess the value of originals for
us. Of his writings may be mentioned: "Limburg Chronicle", the
"Pagus Lohenahe", and the "Introductio in Pagum Lohenahe." His
chief work, the "Limburg Chronicle", was begun in 1610 and
finished in 1612, but it was not edited until 1757 by Hontheim
in his "Prodromus historiae Trevirensis", II, 1046-1166. This
edition, marked by many mistakes and omissions, was published in
its entirety by Knetsch, in the "Publications of the Historical
Commission for Nassau", VI (Wiesbaden, 1909). It is a revision
and continuation of the old Limburg chronicle, begun by the town
clerk, Tilemann, but utilizes also many other sources both
printed and unprinted. His chronicle is of great value because
Mechtel utilizes various accounts which contain important
information as to social conditions, the price of corn and wine,
the cultivation of the vine, climatic conditions and wages. In
treating German and early medieval history he does not rise
above the level of the historians of the fifteenth and sixteenth
centuries. Both his other works are as yet unpublished; Knetsch
reviews their contents in his edition of the chronicle X-XVI.
CARL KNETSCH, Die Limburger Chronik des Johannes Mechtel
(Wiesbaden, 1909), I-XXV.
PATRICIUS SCHLAGER
St. Mechtilde
St. Mechtilde
(MATILDA VON HACKEBORN-WIPPRA).
Benedictine; born in 1240 or 1241 at the ancestral castle of
Helfta, near Eisleben, Saxony; died in the monastery of Helfta,
19 November, 1298. She belonged to one of the noblest and most
powerful Thuringian families, while here sister was the saintly
and illustrious Abbess Gertrude von Hackeborn. Some writers have
considered that Mechtilde von Hackeborn and Mechtilde von Wippra
were two distinct persons, but, as the Barons of Hackeborn were
also Lords of Wippra, it was customary for members of that
family to take their name indifferently from either, or both of
these estates. So fragile was she at birth, that the attendants,
fearing she might die unbaptized, hurried her off to the priest
who was just then preparing to say Mass. He was a man of great
sanctity, and after baptizing the child, uttered these prophetic
words: "What do you fear? This child most certainly will not
die, but she will become a saintly religious in whom God will
work many wonders, and she will end her days in a good old age."
When she was seven years old, having been taken by her mother on
a visit to her elder sister Gertrude, then a nun in the
monastery of Rodardsdorf, she became so enamoured of the
cloister that her pious parents yielded to her entreaties and,
acknowledging the workings of grace, allowed her to enter the
alumnate. Here, being highly gifted in mind as well as in body,
she made remarkable progress in virtue and learning.
Ten years later (1258) she followed her sister, who, now abbess,
had transferred the monastery to an estate at Helfta given her
by her brothers Louis and Albert. As a nun, Mechtilde was soon
distinguished for her humility, her fervour, and that extreme
amiability which had characterized her from childhood and which,
like piety, seemed hereditary in her race. While still very
young, she became a valuable helpmate to Abbess Gertrude, who
entrusted to her direction the alumnate and the choir. Mechtilde
was fully equipped for her task when, in 1261, God committed to
her prudent care a child of five who was destined to shed lustre
upon the monastery of Helfta. This was that Gertrude who in
later generations became known as St. Gertrude the Great. Gifted
with a beautiful voice, Mechtilde also possessed a special
talent for rendering the solemn and sacred music over which she
presided as domna cantrix. All her life she held this office and
trained the choir with indefatigable zeal. Indeed, Divine praise
was the keynote of her life as it is of her book; in this she
never tired, despite her continual and severe physical
sufferings, so that in His revelations Christ was wont to call
her His "nightingale". Richly endowed, naturally and
supernaturally, ever gracious, beloved of all who came within
the radius of her saintly and charming personality, there is
little wonder that this cloistered virgin should strive to keep
hidden her wondrous life. Souls thirsting for consolation or
groping for light sought her advice; learned Dominicans
consulted her on spiritual matters. At the beginning of her own
mystic life it was from St. Mechtilde that St. Gertrude the
Great learnt that the marvellous gifts lavished upon her were
from God.
Only in her fiftieth year did St. Mechtilde learn that the two
nuns in whom she had especially confided had noted down the
favours granted her, and, moreover, that St. Gertrude had nearly
finished a book on the subject. Much troubled at this, she, as
usual, first had recourse to prayer. She had a vision of Christ
holding in His hand the book of her revelations, and saying:
"All this has been committed to writing by my will and
inspiration; and, therefore you have no cause to be troubled
about it." He also told her that, as He had been so generous
towards her, she must make Him a like return, and that the
diffusion of the revelations would cause many to increase in His
love; moreover, He wished this book to be called "The Book of
Special Grace", because it would prove such to many. When the
saint understood that the book would tend to God's glory, she
ceased to be troubled, and even corrected the manuscript
herself. Immediately after her death it was made public, and
copies were rapidly multiplied, owing chiefly to the widespread
influence of the Friars Preachers. Boccaccio tells how, a few
years after the death of Mechtilde, the book of her revelations
was brought to Florence and popularized under the title of "La
Laude di donna Matelda". It is related that the Florentines were
accustomed to repeat daily before their sacred images the
praises learned from St. Mechtilde's book. St. Gertrude, to
whose devotedness we owe the "Liber Specialis Gratiae" exclaims:
"Never has there arisen one like to her in our monastery; nor,
alas! I fear, will there ever arise another such!" -- little
dreaming that her own name would be inseparably linked with that
of Mechtilde. With that of St. Gertrude, the body of St.
Mechtilde most probably still reposes at Old Helfta thought the
exact spot is unknown. Her feast is kept 26 or 27 February in
different congregations and monasteries of her order, by special
permission of the Holy See. (For an account of the general life
at Helfta and the estimate of the writings of St. Mechtilde, see
GERTRUDE OF HACKEBORN; GERTRUDE THE GREAT, SAINT.)
There is another honour, inferior certainly to that of sanctity,
yet great in itself and worthy of mention here: the homage of a
transcendent genius was to be laid at the feet of St. Mechtilde.
Critics have long been perplexed as to one of the characters
introduced by Dante in his "Purgatorio" under the name of
Matelda. After ascending seven terraces of a mountain, on each
of which the process of purification is carried on, Dante, in
Canto xxvii, hears a voice singing: "Venite, benedicti patris
mei"; then later, in Canto xxviii, there appears to him on the
opposite bank of the mysterious stream a lady, solitary,
beautiful, and gracious. To her Dante addresses himself; she it
is who initiates him into secrets, which it is not given to
Virgil to penetrate, and it is to her that Beatrice refers Dante
in the words: "Entreat Matilda that she teach thee this." Most
commentators have identified Matilda with the warrior-Countess
of Tuscany, the spiritual daughter and dauntless champion of St.
Gregory VII, but all agree that beyond the name the two have
little or nothing in common. She is no Amazon who, at Dante's
prayer that she may draw nearer to let him understand her song,
turns towards him "not otherwise than a virgin that droppeth her
modest eyes". In more places than one the revelations granted to
the mystics of Helfta seem in turn to have become the
inspirations of the Florentine poet. All writers on Dante
recognize his indebtedness to St. Augustine, the
Pseudo-Dionysius, St. Bernard, and Richard of St. Victor. These
are precisely the writers whose doctrines had been most
assimilated by the mystics of Helfta, and thus they would the
more appeal to the sympathies of the poet. The city of Florence
was among the first to welcome St. Mechtilde's book. Now Dante,
like all true poets, was a child of his age, and could not have
been a stranger to a book which was so popular among his
fellow-citizens. The "Purgatorio" was finished between 1314 and
1318, or 1319 -- just about the time when St. Mechtilde's book
was popular. This interpretation is supported by the fact that
St. Mechtilde in her "Book of Special Grace" (pt. I, c. xiii)
describes the place of purification under the same figure of a
seven-terraced mountain. The coincidence of the simile and of
the name, Matelda, can scarcely be accidental. For another among
many points of resemblance between the two writers compare
"Purgatorio", Canto xxxi, where Dante is drawn by Matelda
through the mysterious stream with pt. II, c. ii. of the "Liber
Specialis Gratiae". The serene atmosphere which seems to cling
about the gracious and beautiful songstress, her virgin modesty
and simple dignity, all seem to point to the recluse of Helfta
rather than to the stern heroine of Canossa, whose hand was
thrice bestowed in marriage. Besides, in politics Dante, as an
ardent Ghibelline, supported the imperial pretensions and he
would have been little inclined to sing the praises of the
Tuscan Countess. The conclusion may therefore be hazarded that
this "Donna Matelda" of the "Purgatorio" personifies St.
Mechtilde as representing mystic theology.
ST. MECHTILDIS, Liber specialis gratiae; ST. GERTRUDIS, Legatus
divine pictatis; Preface to Revelationes Gertrudianae ac
Mechtildinae, I, II (Paris and Poitiers, 1875); LEDOS, Ste.
Gertrude (Paris, 1907); ZIEGELBAUER, Hist. Lit. Bened. (Vienna,
1754); PREGER, Gesch. Deutsch. Mystik. I (Leipzig, 1874);
Revelations de S. Mechtilde (Paris and Poitiers, 1909).
GERTRUDE CASANOVA
Mechtild of Magdeburg
Mechtild of Magdeburg
A celebrated medieval mystic, b. of a noble family in Saxony
about 1210; d. at the Cistercian nunnery of Helfta near
Eisleben, c. 1285. She experienced her first inspirations at the
age of twelve, when, as she herself states, she was greeted by
the Holy Ghost. From that time, the greeting was repeated daily.
Under this inspiration she desired to be despised by all
without, however, deserving it, and for this purpose left her
home, where she had always been loved and respected, to become a
Beguine at Mageleburg in 1230. Here, under the spiritual
guidance of the Dominicans she led a life of prayer and extreme
mortification. Her heavenly inspirations and ecstatic visions
became more frequent and were of such a nature that they
dispelled from the mind of her confessor all doubt as to their
Divine origin. By his order she reluctantly wrote her visions.
Shortly after 1270 she joined the Cistercian nuns at Helfta,
where she spent the remaining twelve years of her life, highly
respected as one signally favoured by God, especially by her
namesake St. Mechtilde of Hackeborn and by St. Gertrude the
Great. Mechtild left to the world a most wonderful book, in
which she recorded her manifold inspirations and visions.
According to her assertion, God ordered the title of the book to
be "Vliessende lieht miner gotheit in allu die herzen die da
lebent ane valscheit", i.e. "Light of my divinity, flowing into
all hearts that live without guile". The work is commonly styled
"Das fliessende Licht der Gottheit". She wrote her inspirations
on separate sheets of paper, which she handed to the Dominican,
Henry of Halle, lector in Rupin. The original, which was written
in Low German, is not extant, but a South German translation,
which was prepared by Henry of Nordlingen about the year 1344 is
still preserved in the original manuscript in the library of
Einsiedeln, Codex 277. Mechtild began the work in 1250 and
finished the sixth volume at Magdeburg in 1264, to which she
added a seventh volume at Helfta. A Latin translation of the six
volumes written at Magdeburg was made by a Dominican, about the
year 1290, and is reprinted, together with a translation of the
seventh volume, in "Revelationes Gertrudianse ac Mechtildianae",
II (Paris, 1877), 435-707. The manuscript of Einsiedeln was
edited by Gall Morel, O.S.B., who also translated it into modern
German (Ratisbon, 1809). Other modern German translations were
prepared by J. Muller (Ratisbon, 1881) and Eseherich (Berlin,
1909).
Mechtild's language is generally forcible and often exceedingly
flowery. Her prose is occasionally interspered with beautiful
original pieces of poetry, which manifest that she had all the
natural gifts of a poet. She is never at a loss to give vent to
her feelings of joy and grief in the most impressive form. Often
also she delights in aphoristic and abrupt sentences. It is
sometimes difficult to ascertain just how far her narrations are
faithful reproductions of her visions, and how far they are
additions made by her own poetic fancy. This is especially true
of her realistic description of the hereafter. Writing on hell,
she says, "I saw a horrible and wretched place; its name is
'Eternal Hatred'." She then represents Lucifer as chained by his
sins in the lowest abyss of hell, all sin, agony, pestilence and
ruin, that fill hell, purgatory, and earth, flowing from his
burning heart and mouth. She divides hell into three parts; the
lowest and most horrible is filled with condemned Christians,
the middle with Jews, and the highest with Pagans. Hell,
purgatory and heaven are situated one immediately above the
other. The lowest portion of purgatory is filled with devils,
who torment the souls in the most horrible manner, while the
highest portion of purgatory is identical with the lowest
portion of heaven. Many a soul in the lowest Purgatory does not
know whether it will ever be saved. The last statement was
condemned in the Bull "Exsurge Domine", 15 June, 1520, as one of
the errors of Luther: "Animae in purgatorio non sunt securae de
earum salute, saltem omnes". Mechtild's conception of the
hereafter is believed by some to be the basis of Dante's "Divine
Comedy", and the poet's Matelda ("Purgatory", Canto 27-33) to be
identical with our Mechtild (see Preger, "Dante's Matelda",
Munich, 1873). Whatever we may think of these and other
statements in the work of Mechtild, much of it no doubt, has all
the signs of a special inspiration from above. That she did not
seek the favour of man is evident from her fearless denunciation
of the vices of the clergy in general and especially the clergy
of Magdeburg. Some authors call her saint, though she has not
been canonized and apparently has never received any public
cult.
MICHAEL, Kulturzustande des deutschen Volkes wahrend des 13.
Jahrhunderts, III (Freiburg im Br., 1903), 187-199; IDEM in
Zeischrift fur Kath. Theologie XXV (Innsbruck, 1901), 177-180;
GREITH, Die deutsche Mystik im Predigerorden (Freiburg, im Br.,
1861), 207-277; STRAUCH, Kleine Beitrage zur Geschichte der
deutschen Mystik in Zeitschrift fur deutsches Altertum und
deutsche Literatur, XXVII (Berlin, 1883), 368-381; PREGER,
Geschichte der deutschen Mystik im Mittelater, I (Leipzig,
1874), 91-112; STIERLING, Studien zu Mechtild v. Magd.
(Gottingen, 1909).
MICHAEL OTT
Mecklenburg
Mecklenburg
A division of the German Empire, consists of the two Grand
Duchies of Mecklenburg-Schwerin and Mecklenburg-Strelitz.
History
At the beginning of the Christian era, Mecklenburg was inhabited
by Germanic tribes, but as early as the second century they
began to leave the district; Slavonic tribes poured in, and by
about a.d. 600 they had complete possession of the land. These
Slavonic tribes were principally Wends, of whom the Obotrites
occupied the western parts, the Lusici, or Wilzen, the eastern.
Their chief occupations were forestry, cattle-raising, hunting,
and fishing. Their religion was a pure worship of nature. The
chief god was Radegast Zuarasici, whose sanctuary at Rethra was
the centre of his worship for the whole of Mecklenburg until it
was destroyed in the twelfth century, and replaced by Svantevit,
the "holy oracle", whose temple was at Arkona on the Island of
Ruegen. After Charlemagne had brought the Saxons into
subjection, the tribes of Mecklenburg became the immediate
neighbours of the Frankish Empire, with which an active trade
soon sprang up. Commerce was still further developed under the
Saxon emperors (919-1024), the most important mart for the Slays
being Bardowiek.
Charlemagne's conquests in this region were lost soon after his
death. Henry I of Germany (916-36) was the first to force the
Slavonic territory again to pay tribute (about 928); he also
placed it under the jurisdiction of Saxon counts. With the
dominion of the Germans, Christianity found ingress into the
land. Bishop Adalward of Verden brought the first Obotrite
prince into the Church. Otto the Great (936-973) divided the
territory of Mecklenburg between the two margravates he had
formed. Ecclesiastically, the land belonged partly to the
Dioceses of Havelberg and Brandenburg, partly to the Diocese of
Oldenburg, that was erected in 968. However, there can hardly be
said to have been a systematic attempt at conversion to
Christianity, for the German authority had no secure foundation.
The early successes in conversion to Christianity were swept
away by an insurrection of the Slavs, after the defeat of the
Emperor Otto II in Calabria in 928. The Obotrites under
Mistiwoi, who had previously accepted Christianity, plundered
and burned Hamburg, ravaged the whole of North Albingia
(Holstein), crossed the Elbe and advanced as far as Milde. Every
trace of Christianity was destroyed. There was much strife
between German and Wend in the succeeding decades. It was not
until the reign of Henry II (1002-1024) that the Lusici and
Obotrites became allies of the German Empire against the Polish
Duke Boleslaw. Towards the end of his life Mistiwoi turned in
repentance once more to Christianity, and ended his days in the
monastery of Bardowiek.
Archbishop Unwanus of Hamburg (from 1013) laboured with energy
and success; but the Saxon dukes exacted a heavy tribute, which
was the chief reason why the Christian teaching protected by
them was regarded with little favour, even though the Wendic
rulers Udo and Ratibor became Christians. Udo's son Gottschalk
faithfully supported Archbishop Adalbert of Bremen, and
frequently explained Christian doctrine at church to his people.
Churches and monasteries rapidly appeared. New dioceses were
founded in addition to the Diocese of Oldenburg, namely,
Ratzeburg under Bishop Aristo, and Mecklenburg under Bishop
John, a Scot. The conversion of the entire country to
Catholicity seemed assured. But the ferment of the old
antagonism to the tribute to the empire and the Saxon dukes led
to a heathen reaction. The first victim was Gottschalk himself,
in 1066. On 15 July of the same year the twenty-eight monks of
the Benedictine monastery at Ratzeburg were stoned to death; in
Mecklenburg the aged Bishop John and many other Christians were
slain, and in a few months the German supremacy was thrown off.
The Wends even plundered the Christian cities of Schleswig and
Hamburg, the bishop of the latter being obliged to transfer his
see to Bremen. The bloody national god Radegast of Rethra became
once more dominant.
Cruto, Prince of the Island of Ruegen, ruled the country for
nearly thirty years. Finally in 1093, Cruto having been
murdered, Gottschalk's son, Henry, was able to gain his
inheritance. Although a Christian he never attempted to force
Christianity upon the Wends. The only church was in his capital,
Luebeck, where St. Vicelin proclaimed the word of God from 1126.
Soon after Henry's death (1126) his family became extinct, and
the Emperor Lothair granted the vacant territory in fief to
Henry's Danish cousin, Knut Laward, Duke of Schleswig. Claims
were also made by Henry's nephew Pribislaw, and by Niklot, an
Obotrite noble. These two divided the rulerless land between
them when in 1131 Knut Laward was killed by his cousin Magnus.
Pribislaw, however, could not maintain himself long against the
German advance. He was obliged to surrender in 1142 to Count
Adolf of Schauenburg, who repeopled the almost desolate
territory with colonists from Flanders, Holland, Westphalia, and
Frisia. Niklot, on the other hand, preserved his independence
until, after a protracted struggle, he was subdued by Henry the
Lion, Duke of Saxony. Upon agreeing to accept Christianity and
to acknowledge German supremacy, Niklot was allowed to retain
his possessions (1147). However, he subsequently headed a
revolt, which ended in his overthrow (1160). After Niklot's son,
Pribislaw II, the ancestor of the reigning dynasty, had been
baptized in the year 1167, he was established as ruler.
Hartwig of Stade, Bishop of Bremen, soon provided for the
restoration of the former Wendic dioceses. In 1150 he
consecrated Vicelin Bishop of Oldenburg, and Emmehard Bishop of
Mecklenburg, Schwerin now becoming the see of the latter.
Hartwig had not waited to secure an endowment sufficient for
them from the Saxon duke. Henry the Lion, therefore, was soon
able to obtain for himself what otherwise only belonged to the
emperor, the right of investiture for the Obotrite dioceses.
This privilege was granted by the Emperor Frederick Barbarossa
(1152-1189), who regarded Henry as one of the most trustworthy
supporters of his power. At the same time Henry was empowered to
found dioceses and churches in the region on the farther side of
the Elbe and to endow them with imperial domains, which was what
the conquered Slavonic territory was held to be. In 1154 Henry
re-established the Diocese of Ratzeburg, appointing as bishop
Evermod, cathedral provost of Magdeburg. A number of Christian
Germans came into the region, and the Wends were brought to
accept Christianity. The land was rapidly covered with churches,
parishes, and monasteries. Besides the Cistercian monastery of
Dobberan that Pribislaw endowed largely with lands, there were
founded monasteries of Benedictines, Franciscans,
Premonstratensians, of the religious orders of Knights
Hospitallers, of St. Anthony, etc.
In 1170 Frederick Barbarossa raised Pribislaw to the dignity of
a prince of the empire. On Pribislaw's death in 1178, however,
domestic disputes broke out, and the overthrow of Duke Henry the
Lion of Saxony in 1180 weakened German power in the northern
part of the empire. Denmark was thus enabled to bring under its
authority large portions of North Germany, Mecklenburg being
obliged to recognize Danish supremacy in the reign of Henry
Burwy I (1178-1227). In 1227 Henry Burwy, in confederation with
the Counts of Schwerin, the Archbishop of Bremen, and the city
of Lubeck, cast off the Danish yoke. Thereupon the influx of
German colonists received a new impetus, and, in the first half
of the thirteenth century, a German municipality had already
developed there. After the death of Henry Burwy, the territory
was divided (1229) into four principalities: Mecklenburg, Werle,
Rostock, and Parchim. The two latter lines died out in 1314 and
1316 respectively; that of Werle flourished until 1430. The main
branch of the Mecklenburg line was founded by John II (1226-64).
One of its members, Henry the Pilgrim (1264-1302) was captured
at Cairo in 1271, while on a crusade, and kept prisoner until
1297. His son, Henry the Lion, obtained the district of Stargard
as dowry with his wife, Beatrice of Brandenburg, and, on the
Rostock line becoming extinct, forced the Danes to recognize him
as the hereditary possessor of the city and territory of
Rostock, then under Danish supremacy. Henry's two sons, Albert
II (died 1379) and John I (died 1392), were made dukes and
princes of the empire by the Emperor Charles IV. The partition
of 1352 led to the founding of the Stargard line, which became
extinct in 1471.
In 1358 Albert succeeded in obtaining the County of Schwerin by
purchase; his scheme to place his eldest son, Henry III, on the
Danish throne failed completely, but his second son, Albert III,
was elected King of Sweden in 1363. However, soon after Albert
III had succeeded his father in the government of Mecklenburg
(1383), a rival claimant of the throne of Sweden appeared in the
person of Queen Margaret of Denmark. In 1389 Margaret took
Albert prisoner, and did not release him until, after six years
of captivity, he renounced all claims to the Swedish throne. His
son, Albert V (1412-22), was followed by his own cousin, Henry
the Fat (1422-77), who, after the Stargard line -- to which the
foundation of a university at Rostock in 1418 is due -- had
become extinct, reigned over the whole of Mecklenburg. thus once
more united under a single ruler (1471). Henry's successor,
Magnus (1477-1503), was a very energetic prince. The cities had,
under the weak rule of his predecessor, become insubordinate;
Magnus directed his efforts towards bringing them under the
control of the ruler and evolving a unified state out of a
confused medley of districts, cities, and estates. For a time
his sons, Henry V (1503-52) and Albert VII (1503-47), reigned
jointly so as to maintain the country undivided. In 1523 the
prelates, knighthood, and cities formed a Landesunion, which was
the basis of the present constitution, and established a common
diet for all the divisions of the territory without regard to
any partitions. In 1536 the brothers divided their dominions,
Henry becoming Duke of Schwerin and Albert Duke of Guestrow.
The Reformation in Mecklenburg was entirely the work of the two
joint rulers, Henry V and Albert VII. Even Protestant historians
have testified that before the Reformation the country had
excellent bishops, a pious clergy, and a genuinely Catholic
population. Both dukes were early won over to Luther's cause by
the Humanist Konrad Pegel, whom Henry had called from the
University of Rostock as tutor for his son Magnus, the
postulated Bishop of Schwerin. The duke had permitted Pegel to
go to Wittenberg, whence the latter returned an ardent adherent
of Luther. Albert, indeed, soon abandoned the new doctrine and
maintained the old faith in his part of the country. On the
other hand, from 1524 Henry allowed the new doctrine to be
proclaimed in the chapel of the castle at Schwerin, and
protected the preachers even in his brother's domains. Henry's
chief desire was to obtain the Bishopric of Schwerin. Its
administrator, his son Magnus, who had married in 1543, died
childless in 1550, and Henry saw to it that the chapter elected
as successor his nephew Ulrich.
When after Albert's death in the year 1547 his son John Albert
(1547-76) came to power, the Reformation was completely
established. John Albert was first sole ruler in is father's
dominions, then in 1552 he also succeeded his uncle in Schwerin,
but he resigned the latter principality in 1555 to his brother
Ulrich. In 1549 the joint diet at Sternberg proclaimed the
Lutheran Faith to be the religion of the state, and from 1552
the monasteries were secularized, except Dobbedin, Malchow, and
Ribnitz, which in 1572, in exchange for assuming the ducal
debts, were kept in existence for the unmarried daughters of the
nobility, and have so continued to the present day. The
administration of the now Protestant Dioceses of Schwerin and
Ratzeburg was carried on by members of the ruling dynasty. The
Mass, pilgrimages, vows of religion etc., were forbidden, and by
a consistorial decree of 1570 the public profession of the
Catholic Faith was prohibited.
After a brief reunion of the two principalities in 1610, they
were again divided (1621) into Mecklenburg-Schwerin and
Mecklenburg-Guestrow by John Albert's grandsons, Adolf Frederick
I and John Albert II. They still retained, however, in common
the diet (held now in Sternberg and now in Malchow), the
University of Rostock, and the consistory. During the Thirty
Years' War both dukes formed a brief alliance with King
Christian IV of Denmark. For this they were placed under a ban
by the Emperor Ferdinand IV in 1628, and their territories, from
which they were expelled, were granted to Wallenstein in 1629 as
an imperial fief. In 1631 Gustavus Adolphus restored them their
lands, and in 1635, after the fall of Wallenstein, they were
again recognized by the emperor. During the war Mecklenburg
suffered terribly from the oppression of both the Swedish and
the imperial forces, and also from pestilence and famine. The
Peace of Westphalia (1648) assigned the Dioceses of Schwerin and
Ratzeburg as principalities to Schwerin, in return for which the
city of Wismar and the districts of Poel and Neukloster were
yielded to Sweden. Adolf Frederick I was succeeded in
Mecklenburg-Schwerin by Christian Ludwig (1658-92), who, both
before and after his succession, lived mainly at Paris, where he
became a Catholic in 1663. Though this step opened Mecklenburg
once more to Catholics (see below), it gave them no secure legal
footing even in Schwerin, while in Mecklenburg-Guestrow the most
bitter intolerance of everything Catholic continued to prevail.
When Christian Ludwig I died childless in 1692, his nephew
Frederick William laid claim to the succession, and was opposed
by Adolf Frederick II of Strelitz, the only brother of Christian
then living. After a long dispute, the Hamburg Compact was made
in 1701, through the mediation of the Emperor Leopold. Adolf
Frederick II received the Principality of Ratzeburg, and other
territories; the remaining territory (by far the greater part)
was given to Frederick William. As the latter selected Schwerin
for his residence, and Adolf Frederick Strelitz, the two ruling
houses have since always been distinguished as
Mecklenburg-Schwerin and Mecklenburg-Strelitz.
In Mecklenburg-Schwerin Frederick William and his successor
Charles Leopold had to contend with the estates, especially with
the landed proprietors (Ritterschaft), who since the Thirty
Years' War had secured the farms of most of the peasants for
themselves, and by oppression had forced the peasants into
serfdom. With the aid of Russia the duke drove the estates out
of the country. These applied to the Emperor Charles VI for
help; after the Russians withdrew, an imperial commission with
an army to execute its demands entered the country, and the duke
was forced in 1719 to flee. For many years war was waged in
Mecklenburg between the imperial army and the duke, who was
supported by Prussia and other powers. The ruler and the
estates, in the reign of Charles Leopold's successor Christian
Ludwig II (1747-56), finally came to an agreement in 1755; this
compact, still essentially the basis of the constitution of the
country, gave the estates a large share in the enactment of laws
and extensive rights in the voting of supplies. By this
agreement feudalism won a complete victory over the power of the
prince, in contrast to most of the other divisions of Germany,
where at that era the absolutism of the ruler had retained its
supremacy.
Christian Ludwig II's son Frederick (1756-85) improved the
primary schools, strengthened the University of Rostock, founded
the high school at Buetzow, and by the Peace of Teschen obtained
the Privilegium de non appellando (i. e., there could be no
appeal to the imperial courts), against which the landed
proprietors vehemently protested. In 1803 his nephew, Frederick
Francis I (1785-1835) received the city of Wismar and the
counties of Neukloster from Sweden as pledges for a loan of
1,250,000 talers (approximately $937,500); in 1903 Sweden
finally relinquished its right of redemption. At the dissolution
of the Holy Roman Empire in 1806, the two dukes became
independent sovereigns. In 1808 both princes entered the
Confederation of the Rhine, but joined the Allies opposed to
Napoleon in good time in 1813; in 1815 both took the title of
grand duke and entered the German Confederation.
The movement of 1848 spread rapidly in both grand duchies,
especially in the cities. A proclamation of 23 March, 1848, of
Archduke Frederick Francis I of Mecklenhurg-Schwerin (1842-83)
acknowledged the necessity of a reform in the constitution -- an
example followed by Duke George of Strelits (1816-60). An
extraordinary diet (1848-9) drew up a liberal constitution, to
which the Grand Duke of Schwerin swore in August, 1849, but
against which the Grand Duke of Strelitz, the agnates of both
houses, and also Prussia, on account of its rights of
inheritance of 1442, protested. In September, 1850, a court of
arbitration of the German Confederation decided in favour of the
claimants, and on 14 September the Grand Duke of Schwerin
annulled the new constitution and the old, semi-feudal
constitution came again into force. In the war of 1866 both
princes sided with Prussia against Austria; on 21 August of the
same year they signed the Prussian draft of the North German
Confederation, and in 1867 joined this confederacy. In 1866 both
states became members of the Customs Union, and in 1871 they
became constituent parts of the German Empire. Since their union
with the German Empire in 1871, unceasing efforts have been made
for a reasonable reform of their obsolete constitution, which is
no longer in accord with the new empire. So far all attempts
have failed, owing to the opposition of the estates especially
of the landed proprietors (Ritterschaft) who have held to their
privileges with unusual obstinacy. The present Grand Duke of
Mecklenburg-Schwerin is Frederick Francis IV, succeeded 1897;
the Grand Duke of Mecklenburg-Strelitz is Adolf Frederick V,
succeeded 1904.
Statistics
Mecklenburg-Schwerin has an area of about 5068 sq. miles. In
1905 it had 625,045 inhabitants, of whom 609,914 were Lutherans,
12,835 Catholics, and 1482 Jews. Mecklenburg-Strelitz has an
area of about 1131 sq. miles. In 1905 it had 103,451
inhabitants, of whom 100,314 were Lutherans, 2627 Catholics, and
298 Jews. Both grand duchies are hereditary monarchies; from
1523 they have had a common assembly or diet made up of the
landed proprietors (Ritterschaft), and the burgomasters of
specified towns (Landschaft). The Ritterschaft consists of about
750 owners, whether noble or not, of about 1200 landed
properties which carry with them the right to a vote in the
assembly. The Landschaft is composed of the burgomasters of the
cities of Rostock and Wismar, and the municipal authorities of
the forty inland cities of Schwerin and the seven inland cities
of Strelitz. The principality of Ratzeburg, which has an
assembly of estates of its own, is not represented in the
general estates, neither are the city of Neustrelitz, nor the
inhabitants of the crown domain (domanium), that is, the land
personally owned by the ruler, in which he is still absolute
sovereign in making laws and levying taxes. The crown domain
includes about 43 per cent of the area and about 32 per cent of
the inhabitants. The estates have an important share in
legislation and a deciding vote in questions of taxation, and in
all questions pertaining to their rights; in other matters their
opinion has to be obtained.
The Lutheran Church has a consistorial constitution. The head of
the church is the sovereign, who exercises his rights in
Mecklenburg-Schwerin by means of an upper consistory; in
Mecklenburg-Strelitz by a consistory. Mecklenburg-Schwerin is
divided into 7 superintendencies and 36 provostships or
deaneries; Mecklenburg-Strelitz into 1 superintendency and 7
synods.
The Catholic Church in both grand duchies is under the
supervision of the Vicar Apostolic of the Northern Missions, the
Bishop of Osnabrueck. After the Reformation Catholicism was
almost extinguished in Mecklenburg, and its public exercise
threatened with punishment. For nearly a hundred years it could
only be practised in secret. The conversion of Duke Christian
Ludwig I in 1663 produced the first change of conditions.
Notwitstanding the protests of his ducal brothers and the
estates, he called Catholic priests into the country and granted
them the castle chapel at Schwerin for the celebration of Mass.
The right to do this was confirmed to him in 1666 by the
imperial Diet. Many of the chief nobility followed at that time,
the example of their ruler, and returned to the Church of their
forefathers, as the hereditary Marshal Joachim Christian Hahn,
of the same family as that from which the convert Ida, Countess
Hahn-Hahn, came.
The Catholic Faith, notwithstanding this, did not attain a legal
position, and the duke never permitted a Catholic church to be
built, although the Vicar Apostolic of the Northern Missions,
Nicholas Steno, who lived in Schwerin from 1685, made every
exertion to gain his consent. Consequently, when Christian
Ludwig died the Catholic services ceased. The only church
services now allowed were held in the private chapel of the
chancellor of the next duke, Count Horn, who had become a
Catholic. With the death of the count this privilege expired. It
was not until 1701 that the free exercise of the Catholic
religion was again permitted, this time in the chapel of the
imperial ambassador von Egk. In 1702, when the ambassador left
Schwerin, Duke Frederick William transferred this right to a
Catholic lady, Frau von Bibow. Through her efforts the Jesuits
were entrusted with the mission in Schwerin; from 1709 they
established themselves here permanently. Father von Stoecken
(1730-43) was able to bring it about that in 1731 a house was
secured for the mission, and that the church service, which up
to then had been private, could be a public one. He also
succeeded by unwearied effort in founding a school at Schwerin,
where five to seven boys could be prepared for the Collegium
Nordicum at Linz in Upper Austria.
From 1764 a priest from Schwerin was able to distribute
communion to the Catholic soldiers at Rostock in the hall of the
exchange, and to hold Mass for Catholics who attended the market
there at Pentecost. Although Christian Ludwig II had granted
permission for the building of a church, Frederick, who inclined
to a rigorous pietism, forbade its erection. The preparatory
school at Schwerin came to an end when the Emperor Joseph II
suppressed the Collegium Nordicum. Frederick Francis I, two of
whose children became Catholics, gave the money to build the
Catholic church at Ludwigslust. On entering the Confederation of
the Rhine, Frederick had agreed to place the exercise of the
Catholic religion on a legal parity with that of the Lutheran,
and in 1811 this was done.
From that time on the Catholics in reality enjoyed complete
freedom, and in the year 1842 for the first time since the
Reformation a Catholic bishop, Luepcke of Osnabrueck, was able
to hold a confirmation at Schwerin. However, the conversion,
from 1848 onwards, of many important men, among them von
Vogelsang, von Bulow, von der Kettenburg, Professor Maassen,
etc., gave an opportunity to the intolerant party to withdraw
the freedom granted the Catholics, to which action both estates
and Government gave their aid. In 1852 extension to other
localities of the Catholic services was forbidden, also the
coming into Mecklenburg of priests not natives of the country;
these measures were so strictly enforced that the private
chaplain of Herr von der Kettenburg was taken over the boundary
by gendarmes.
In 1857 permission to bury the dead according to the Catholic
ceremonial, and the right to celebrate Mass publicly were
limited to Schwerin and Ludwigslust. The Government of
Mecklenburg-Strelitz was still more intolerant. For many years,
even in the nineteenth century, no priest was permitted to have
a permanent residence in its territory; all that was conceded
was that the Catholic priest at Wittstock in Brandenburg could
stay at Neustrelitz one week of each month for ecclesiastical
functions. This persecution of Catholics was kept up, not by the
rulers, who were generally well inclined, but by the
narrow-minded estates. Public opinion, even outside of Catholic
Germany, repeatedly arose against this persecution, and was
often expressed in sharp protest in the German Diet.
The Governments of the two duchies were finally forced by
pressure from the empire to grant the Catholics a certain, yet
still entirely insufficient, amount of freedom. There is however
no equality as there should be to bring Mecklenburg into accord
with the constitution of the empire or with a modern civilized
state. Although an ordinance of 5 January, 1903 granted to
Catholics the public exercise of their religion everywhere,
nevertheless the permission of the ruler is necessary for the
erection and alteration of parishes, the building of churches
and chapels, appointment of priests, for the settling in the
country of orders and congregations, and for the holding of
processions; nor have the Catholics any legal redress if this
consent is refused.
Furthermore in regard to educational matters, Catholics are not
on an equality with Protestants. They must indeed contribute to
the expenses of the schools, but for their purely private
Catholic schools they receive no allowance from the civil
communes, often indeed they are not allowed to use the state
schools for giving instruction. There is no higher Catholic
education in either grand duchy. Mecklenburg-Schwerin has two
Catholic parishes, one each at Schwerin and Ludwigslust, and
dependent churches at Rostock and Wismar; the priests altogether
number 8. Mecklenburg-Strelitz has 1 parish with 2 priests. The
spiritual care of the summer farm-labourers presents great
difficulties. These men, who number about 20,000-22,000 and are
chiefly Poles, sojourn in Mecklenburg annually from March until
September in order to work on the farms and estates.
BACHMANN, Die landeskundliche Literatur ueber die
Grossherzogtuemer Mecklenburg (Wismar, 1890); LISCH,
Mecklenburger Urkunden (3 vols., Schwerin, 1837-41); WIGGERS,
Kirchengeschichte Mecklenburgs (Parchim and Ludwigslust, 1840);
Mecklenburger Urkundenbuch (22 vols., Schwerin, 1863-1907);
BOLL, Geschichte Mecklenburgs (2 pts., Neubrandenburg, 1855-56);
PENTZ, Geschichte Mecklenburgs (2 pts., Wismar, 1872); LESKER,
Aus Mecklenburgs Vergangenheit (Ratisbon, 1880); RAABE.
Mecklenburgische Vaterlandskunde (2nd ed., 3 vols., 1893-96);
Mecklenburgische Geschichte in Einzeldarstellungen (12 pts.,
Berlin, 1899-1910); SCHMIDT, Mecklenburgisches Kirchenrecht
(Berlin, 1908); SCHLESINGER, Staats- und Verwaltungsrecht des
Grossherzogtums Mecklenburg-Schwerin (Hanover, 1909); BRUNSWIG,
Staats- und Verwaltungsrecht des Grossherzogtums
Mecklenburg-Strelits (Hanover, 1910); WITTE, Mecklenburgische
Geschichte (Wismar, 1909); SCHNELL, Das Unterrichtswesen der
Grossherzogtuemer Mecklenburg-Schwerin und Mecklenburg-Strelitz
(3 vols., Berlin, 1907-10); Jahrbuecher des Vereins fuer
Geschichte Mecklenburgs (Schwerin, 1836--); SCHLIS, Die Kunst-
und Geschichtsdenkmaeler des Grossherzogtums
Mecklenburg-Schwerin (5 vols., Schwerin, 1896-1902).
JOSEPH LINS
Jean Paul Medaille
Jean Paul Medaille
Jesuit missionary; b. at Carcassonne, the capital of the
Department of Aude, France, 29 January, 1618; d. at Auch, the
capital of the Department of Gers, France, 15 May, 1689. He
entered the Society of Jesus, 15 August, 1640, and after
completing his studies spent a number of years in the classroom,
teaching both the lower and higher studies of the college
courses and particularly, for the space of six years,
philosophy. Later he was applied to the work of preaching, which
may be regarded as his life work; to this he gave himself up
almost exclusively for eighteen years, until advancing age and
the infirmities brought on by his laborious and austere life
forced him to devote himself to the less fatiguing work of
directing sodalities and of hearing confessions, especially of
the poor. He was one of the number of illustrious missioners
formed in the school of St. Francis Regis of the Society of
Jesus, and spent the best years of his life in the
evangelization of Velay, Auvergne, Languedoc, and Aveyron. His
apostolic labours were attended with greater and more lasting
fruit, because he established wherever he preached fervent
sodalities of men and women who, by all sorts of works of
charity, such as instructing children, visiting the sick,
helping the poor, perpetuated and extended the fruits of his
missions. These pious sodalities, however, lacked certain
elements which Father Medaille regarded as necessary for the
stabliity of his work. Their members, although devoted, were
hampered in many ways and by many ties in the exercise of their
zeal. Father Medaille resolved, therefore, to start a
congregation of nuns who should give themselves up wholly and
unreservedly to all the spiritual and corporal works of mercy.
Having matured his plans, he laid them before Mgr de Maupas, who
gave them his fullest approval. Shortly after, Father Medaille
founded the Congregation of the Sisters of St. Joseph. The
general idea of the congregation was drawn, at least to a
certain extent, from the works of St. Francis de Sales, but the
details of its practical development were based almost entirely
on the constitutions of the Society of Jesus. It is as the
founder of this congregation that Father Medaille is best known.
His active life left him no time for writing; consequently we
have nothing from his pen, aside from some correspondence,
except the "Constitutions pour la Congregation des Soeurs de
Saint Joseph". These consitutions have been incorrectly
attibuted to Father Peter Medaille, S.J. It is true that Father
Peter Medaille contributed much in later years to the
establishment on a firm basis and to the spread of the
congregation, but at the time of its foundation he was still a
novice and had neither the experience nor the authority
necessary for so responsible a work.
Prat, Le Disciple de St. Jean Francois Regis, notes
supplementaires (Paris, 180), 180 sq.; de Guilhermy, Menologe de
la Comp. de Jesus, Assistance de France, I (Paris, 1892), 631
sq.
J.H. FISHER
Devotional Medals
Devotional Medals
A medal may be defined to be a piece of metal, usually in the
form of a coin, not used as money, but struck or cast for a
commemorative purpose, and adorned with some appropriate effigy,
device, or inscription. In the present article we are concerned
only with religious medals. These are more varied even than
secular medals, for they are produced not only to commemorate
persons (e.g. Christ, the Blessed Virgin, and the Saints),
places (e.g. famous shrines) and past historical events (e.g.
dogmatic definitions, miracles, dedications etc.) as well as
personal graces like First Communion, Ordination, etc., but they
are also often concerned with the order of ideas (e.g. they may
recall the mysteries of our Faith, such as the Blessed Sacrament
or the Divine Attributes), they are used to inculcate lessons of
piety, are specially blessed to serve as badges of pious
associations or to consecrate and protect the wearer, and
finally are often enriched with indulgences.
IN THE EARLY CHURCH
It was at one time doubted whether anything in the nature of a
purely devotional medal was known in the early ages of
Christianity. Certain objects of this kind were described and
figured by seventeenth-century writers on the Catacombs, and a
few such were preserved in museums. All these; however, were
regarded with much suspicion before the appearance of an
epoch-making article by de Rossi in the "Bullettino di
Archeologia, Cristiana" for 1869, since which time the question
has been practically set at rest and the authenticity of some at
least of these specimens has remained undisputed. A moment's
consideration will establish the intrinsic probability of the
existence of such objects. The use of amulets in pagan antiquity
was widespread. The word amuletum itself occurs in Pliny, and
many monuments show how talismans of this kind were worn around
the neck by all classes. That the early Church should have found
the abuse ineradicable and should have striven to counteract it
by suggesting or tolerlating some analogous practice of an
innocent character, is in itself highly probable. Many parallel
concessions of this kind might be quoted. The letter of Gregory
the Great to St. Mellitus about the dedication of pagan temples,
preserved to us by Bede (Hist. Eccl., I, xxx), supplies perhaps
the most famous example. Moreover we know that the same St.
Gregory sent to Theodolind, Queen of the Lombards, two
phylacteria, -- the cases are still Preserved at Monza --
containing a relic of the True Cross and a sentence from the
Gospels, which her child Adulovald was to wear around his neck.
This, however, and the practice of wearing "encolpia", little
pectoral crosses, lent itself to abuses when magical formulae
began to be joined to Christian symbols, as was regularly the
practice of the Gnostics. Hence we find many of the fathers of
the fourth and later centuries protesting more or less
vigorously against these phylacteries (cf. St. Jerome, "In
Matt.", iv, 33; P.L., XXVI, 174). But that Christians of good
name did wear such objects of piety around their necks is
certain, and it is consequently probable that Christian devices,
should have been cast in metal for a similar purpose. In Africa
(see "Bullettino di Arch. Crist.", 1891), the moulds have been
found in which little crosses were cast with rings to hang them
by. It follows therefore that certain coin-like objects, for
which there exists good evidence of their being actually
discovered in the Catacombs must be regarded as genuine relics
of the devotional practices of the early Church. Two or three of
these are specially famous. One, which de Rossi attributes to
the close of the fourth century, bears upon both faces the
legend Successa Vivas, an "acclamation" which probably indicates
that the medal was cast for a certain Successa to commemorate,
perhaps, her dedication to God. On one side we see represented
the martyrdom of a saint, presumably St. Lawrence, who is being
roasted upon a gridiron in the presence of the Roman magistrate.
The Christian character of the scene is shown by the chi-rho
chrisma, the alpha and omega, and the martyr's crown. On the
reverse is depicted a cancellated structure, no doubt the tomb
of St. Lawrence, while a figure stands in a reverent attitude
before it holding aloft a candle.
A second remarkable medal, which bean the name of Gaudentianus
on the obverse and Urbicus on the reverse, depicts seemingly on
one face the sacrifice of Abraham; on the other we see
apparently a shrine or altar, above which three candles are
burning, towards which a tall figure carrying a chalice in one
hand is conducting a little child. The scene no doubt represents
the consecration to God of the child as an oblate (q.v.) by his
father before the shrine of some martyr, a custom for which
there is a good deal of early evidence. Other medals are much
more simple, bearing only the chrisma with a name or perhaps a
cross. Others impressed with more complicated devices can only
be dated with difficulty, and some are either spurious, or, as
in the case particularly of some representations of the
adoration of the Magi which seem to show strong traces of
Byzantine influence, they belong to a much later epoch. Some of
the medals or medallions reputedly Christian are stamped upon
one side only, and of this class is a famous bronze medallion of
very artistic execution discovered by Boldeti in the cemetery of
Domitilla and now preserved in the Vatican Library. It bears two
portrait types of the heads of the Apostles SS. Peter and Paul,
and is assigned by de Rossi to the second century. Other
medallions with the (confronted) heads of the two apostles are
also known and a lively controversy largely based on these
medallic materials has been carried on regarding the probability
of their having preserved the tradition of an authentic likeness
(See particularly Weis-Liebersdorf, "Christus und
Apostelbilder", pp. 83 sq.) Certain supposed early medals with
the head of our Saviour are distinctly open to suspicion. How
far the use of such medal of devotion extended in the early
Church it is not easy to decide. One or two passages in the
works of St. Zeno of Verona have suggested that a medal of this
kind was commonly given as a memorial of baptism, but the point
is doubtful. In the life of St. Genevieve, which, despite the
opinion of B. Krusch, is of early date, we read that St.
Germanus of Auxerre hung around her neck a perforated bronze
coin marked with the sign of the cross, in memo of her having
consecrated her virginity to God (Mon. Ger. Hist.: Script.
Merov., III, 217). The language seems to suggest that an
ordinary coin was bored for the purpose, and when we recall how
many of the coins of the late empire were stamped with the
chrisma, or with the figure of the Saviour, it is easy to
believe that the ordinary currency may often have been used for
similar pious purposes.
DURING THE MIDDLE AGES
Although it is probable that the traditions formed by the class
of objects which we have been considering, and which were
equally familiar at Rome and at Constantinople, never entirely
died out, still little evidence exists of the use of medals in
the Middle Ages. No traces of such objects survive remarkable
either for artistic skill or for the value of the metal, and to
speak positively of the date of certain objects of lead and
pewter which may have been hung round the neck, with a religious
intent, is not always easy. But in the course of the twelfth
century, if not earlier, a very general practice grew tip at
well-known places of pilgrimage, of casting tokens in lead, and
sometimes probably in other metals, which served the pilgrim as
a souvenir and stimulus to devotion and at the same time
attested the fact that he had duly reached his destination.
These signacula (enseignes) known in English as "pilgrims'
signs" often took a metallic form and were carried in a
conspicuous way upon the hat or breast. Giraldus Cambrensis
referring to a journey he made to Canterbury about the year
1180, ten years after the martyrdom of St. Thomas, describes
himself and his companions returning to London "cum signaculis
Beati Thormae a collo suspensis" [with the tokens of St. Thomas
hanging round their neck] (Opera, Rolls Series, I, p. 53). Again
the author of Piers the Plowman writes of his imaginary pilgram:
An hundred of ampulles on his hat seten,
Signes of syse and shelles of Galice;
And many a crouche on his cloke, and keyes of Rome,
And the vernicle bifore, for men shulde knowe
And see by his signes whom he sought hadde.
The "ampulles" probably represent Canterbury, but may have been
tokens of the Holy Tear of Vendome (see Forgeais, "Collection",
IV, 65 sq.); Syse stands for Assisi. The "shelles of Galice",
i.e. the scallop-shells of St=2E James of Compostella; the
crouche, or cross, of the Holy Land; the keys of St. Peter; the
"vernicle", or figure of the Veronica, etc. are all very
familiar types, represented in most collections of such objects.
The privilege of casting and selling these pilgrim's signs was a
very valuable one and became a regular source of income at most
places of religious resort.
Then, as manner and custom is, signes there they bought . . .
Each man set his silver in such thing as he liked,
writes a fourteenth-century satirist of one of these shrines.
Moreover we find that the custom was firmly established in Rome
itself, and Pope Innocent III, by a letter of 18 Jan., 1200
(Pottbast, "Regesta", n. 939), grants to the canons of St.
Peter's the monopoly of casting and selling those "signs of lead
or pewter impressed with the image of the Apostles Peter and
Paul with which those who visit their thresholds [ limina] adorn
themselves for the increase of their own devotion and in
testimony of the journey which they have accomplished", and the
pope's language implies that this custom had existed for some
time. In form and fashion these pilgrims' signs are very various
and a considerable literature exists upon the subject (see
especially the work of Forgeais, "Collection de Plombs
histories", 5 vols., Paris, 1864). From about the twelfth
century the casting of these devotional objects continued until
the close of the Middle Ages and even later, but in the
sixteenth or seventeenth century they began to be replaced by
medals properly so called in bronze or in silver, often with
much greater pretensions to artistic execution. With these
leaden Signs should be noted the custom of casting coin-like
tokens in connection with the Feast of Fools, the celebration of
the Boy Bishop and the Innocents. The extant specimens belong
mostly to the sixteenth century, but the practice must be much
older. Though there is often a burlesque element introduced, the
legends and devices shown by such pieces are nearly all
religious; e.g., Ex Ore Infancium Perfecisti Laudem; Innocens
Vous Aidera, etc. (see Vanhende, "Plommes des Innocents," Lille,
1877).
Better deserving of attention are the vast collection of jetons
and mereaux which, beginning in the thirteenth century,
continued to be produced all through the Middle Ages and lasted
on in some places down to the French Revolution. The jetons were
strictly speaking counters, i.e., they were thin pieces of
metal, mostly latten, a sort of brass, stamped an both sides
with some device and originally used in conjunction with a
comptoir (i.e., an abacus or counting board) to perform
arithmetical computations. The name comes from jeter, through
the form jectoir, because they were "thrown down" upon this
board (see Rondot, "Medailleurs Francais", Paris, 1904, p. 48).
It soon became the fashion for every personage of distinction,
especially those who had anything to do with finance, to have
special jetons bearing his own device, and upon some of these
considerable artistic skill was lavished. These pieces served
various purposes besides that for which they were originally
designed, and they were often used in the Middle Ages where we
should now use a ticket or printed card. As might be expected,
they tended to take a religious tone. Upon nearly half the
medieval jetons which survive pious mottoes are found and often
pious devices (Rouyer, "Histoke du Jeton", p. 30). Among the
commonest of these mottoes, which however vary infinitely, we
Might name AVE MARIA GRATIA PLENA; AMES DIEU ET LO (i.e. aimez
dieu et louez le); IHS Son Gre Soit Fait Ci; Virgo Mater
Ecclesie Eterne Porta, Domine Dominus Noster, etc. Often these
jetons were given as presents or "pieces de plaisir "especially
to persons of high consideration, and on such occasions they
were often specially struck in gold or silver. One particular
and very common use of jetons was to serve as vouchers for
attendance at the cathedral offices and meetings of various
kinds. In this case they often carried with them a title to
certain rations or payments of money, the amount being sometimes
stamped on the piece. The tokens thus used were known as jetons
de presence or mereaur, and they were largely used, especially
at a somewhat later date, to secure the due attendance of the
canons at the cathedral offices, etc. What, however, specially
justifies their mention in the present place is the fact that in
many cases the pious device they bore was as much or even more
considered than the use to which they were put, and they seem to
have discharged a function analogous to the Child-of-Mary
medals, the scapulars, the badges and even the pious pictures of
our own day. One famous example is the "mereau d'estaing"
bearing stamped upon it the name of Jesus, which the famous
Frere Richard, whose name is closely if not too creditably
associated with the history of Blessed Joan of Arc, distributed
to his followers in Paris, 1429 (see Rouyer, "Le Nom de Jesus"
in "Revue Belge de Numis.", 1896-7). These jetons stamped with
the Name, were very numerous and were probably closely connected
with the apostolate of St. Bernardine of Siena. Finally it is to
be noted that for the purpose of largess at royal coronations or
for the Maundy, pieces were often struck which perhaps are
rather to be regarded as medals than actual money (see
Mazerolle, "Les Medailleurs Franc,ais, 1902-1904, vol. I, page
lii).
IN MODERN TIMES
Although roughly speaking it is correct to say that medals were
unknown in the Middle Ages, still their introduction belongs to
the early Renaissance period, and it is only when we consider
them as a form of popular devotion, that we can describe them as
of post-Reformation origin. Medals properly so called, i.e.
pieces of metal struck or cast with a commemorative purpose,
began, though there are only a few rare specimens, in the last
years of the fourteenth century (Rondot, loc. cit., 60-62). The
first certainly known medal was struck for Francesco Carrara
(Novello) on the occasion of the capture of Padua in 1390, but
practically the vogue of this form of art was created by Vittore
Pisano, called Pisanello (c. 138O-1451), and its first
developments were all Italian. These early Renaissance medals,
magnificent as they are, belong to civil life and only touch
upon our immediate subject, but though not religious in intent
many of them possess a strong religious colouring. Nothing more
devotional could be imagined than the beautiful reverse of
Pisano's medal of Malatesta Novello, where the mail-clad warrior
dismounting from his horse is represented as kneeling before the
crucifix. So again the large medal, in the Brittish Museum, of
Savonarola holding the crucifix, probably executed by Andrea
della Robbia, portrays with rare fidelity "his deep-set glowing
eye, his bony cheeks, the strong nose and protruding lips"
(Fabriczy, "Italian Medals", p. 133), while the reverse displays
the avenging sword of God and the Holy Ghost hovering over the
doomed city of Florence. Wonderful again in their religious
feeling are Antonio Marescotti's (c. 1453) superb medals of San
Bernardino da Siena, while among the series of early papal
medals we have such masterpieces as the portrait of Sixtus IV by
Andrea Guazzalotti (1435-95).
But it was long before this new art made its influence so far
widely felt as to bring metal representations of saints and
shrines, of mysteries and miracles, together with emblems and
devices of all kinds, in a cheap form into the hands of the
people. Undoubtedly the gradual substitution of more artistic
bronze and silver medals for the rude pilgrim's signs at such
great sanctuaries as Loreto or St. Peter's, did much to help on
the general acceptance of medals as objects of devotion. Again
the papal jubilee medals which certainly began as early as 1475,
and which from the nature of the case were carried into all
parts of the world, must have helped to make the idea familiar.
But this was not all. At some time during the sixteenth century
the practice was adopted, possibly following an usage long
previously in vogue in the case of Agnus Deis (q.v.) of giving a
papal blessing to medals and even of enriching them with
indulgences. On the other hand it is noteworthy that among the
benediction forms of the Middle Ages no single example is found
of a blessing for numismata. A pilgrim's "insignia" were often
blessed no doubt, but by this term were only meant his scrip and
staff (see Franz, "Kirchlichen Benedictionen im Mittelalter",
II, 271-89), not the leaden tokens spoken of above. The story
runs that the use of blessed medals began with the revolt of the
Gueux in Flanders, A.D 1566. A certain medal or rather set of
medals bearing on the obverse, the head of Philip II with the
motto EN TOUT FIDELES AU ROI and on the reverse a beggar's
wallet and the words JUSQUE A PORTER LA BESACE, Wag used by the
Gueux faction as a badge. To this the Spaniards replied by
striking a medal with the head of our Saviour and on the reverse
the image of our Lady of Hal, and Pius V granted an indulgence
to those who wore this medal in their hats (Simonis, "Art du
Medailleur en Belgique", 1904, II, pp. 76-80).
From this the custom of blessing and indulgencing medals is said
to have rapidly extended under the sanction of the popes.
Certain it is that Sixtus V attached indulgences to some ancient
coins discovered in the foundations of the buildings at the
Scala Santa, which coins he caused to be richly mounted and sent
to persons of distinction. Thus encouraged, and stimulated
further by the vogue of the jubilee and other papal medals of
which we have still to speak, the use of these devotional
objects spread to every part of the world. Austria and Boherma
seem to have taken the lead in introducing the fashion into
central Europe, and some exceptionally fine specimens were
produced under the inspiration of the Italian artists whom the
Emperor Maximilian invited to his court. Some of the religious
medals cast by Antonio Abondio and his pupils at Vienna are of
the highest order of excellence. But in the course of the
sixteenth and seventeenth centuries almost every considerable
city in Catholic Europe came to have craftsmen of its own who
followed the industry, and the tradition created by such Italian
artists as Lesne Leoni at Brussels, with men, like Jonghelinck
and Stephen of Holland for his pupils, and by John de Candida,
Nicholas Of Florence and Benvenuto Cellini in France, was bound
to have lasting effects.
The number and variety of the religious pieces produced at a
later date, as Domanig (Die deutsch Privat-Medaille, p. 29) is
fain to attest, defies all classification. Only one writer the
Benedictine L. Kuncze (in his, "Systematik der Weihmuzen" Raab,
1885), seems to have seriously grappled with the task and his
success is very moderate. As an indication of the vast
complexity of the subject, we may note that in the thirty-first
of his fifty divisions, the section devoted to medals
commemorative of churches and sanctuaries of the Blessed Virgin,
he enumerates over 700 such shrines of which he has found some
record -- the number is probably immensely greater -- while in
connection with the majority of these, special medals have at
some time been struck, often, e.g. at Loreto, in an almost
endless series. Under these circumstances, all that can be done
is to point out a few illustrative groups rather apart from the
common rum of pious medals; those connected with places,
confraternities religious orders, saints, mysteries, miracles,
devotions, &c., are types with which everyone is familiar.
(1) Plague medals
Struck and blessed as a protection against pestilence. The
subjects are very various e.g., the figure of St. Sebastian and
St. Roch, and different shrines of the Blessed Virgin, often
also with a view of some particular city. Round them are
commonly inscribed mysterious letters analogous to those
depicted on the famous medal of St. Benedict. For example +. z
+. D. I. A. etc. These letters stand for "Crux Christi salva,
nos"; "Zelus domus Dei libera me", "Crux Christi vincit et
regnat per lignum crucis libera me Domine ab, hac peste Deus
meus expelle pestem et libera me, etc. (See Beierlein "Munzer
bayerischer Kloster", and the monographs devoted to this subject
by Pfeiffer and Ruland, "Pestilentia, in Nummis", Tubingen,
1882, and "Die deutschen Pestainulette", Lei zig, 1885.)
(2) Medals commemorating Miracles of the Eucharist
There were a very large number of these struck for jubilees,
centenaries, etc., in the different places where these miracles
were believed to have happened, often adorned with very quaint
devices. There is one for example, commemorative of the miracle
at Seefeld, upon which the story is depicted of a nobleman who
demanded to receive a large host at communion like the priest's.
The priest complies, but as a punishment for the nobleman's
presumption the ground opens and swallows him up (see Pachinger,
"Wallfahrts Medafflen der Tirol", Vienna, 1908).
(3) Private medals
These form a very large class, but particular specimens are
often extremely scarce, for they were struck to commemorate life
of individuals, and were only distributed to friends. Baptisms,
marriages, first communions, deaths formed the principal
occasions for striking these private medals. The baptismal or a
sponsor medals (pathen medaillen) are particularly interesting,
and often contain precise details as to the hour of birth which
would the child's horoscope to be calculated. (See Domanig, "Die
deutsche Privat-Medaille", Vienna, 1893, 3, pp 25-26.)
(4) Medals commemorative of special legends
Of this class the famous Cross of St. Ulrich of Augsburg may
serve as a specimen. A cross is supposed to have been brought by
an angel to St. Ulrich that he might bear it in his hands in the
great battle against the Huns, A.D. 955. Freisenegger in his
monograph "Die Ulrichs-kreuze" (Augsburg, 1895), enumerates 180
types of this object of devotion sometimes in cross sometimes in
medal form, often associated with the medal of St. Benedict.
Papal medals do not immediately belong to this place, for they
are not precisely devotional in purpose, but a very large number
of these pieces are ultimately associated with ecclesiastical
functions of various kinds, and more particularly with the
opening and closing of the Holy Door in the years of Jubilee.
The series with the pontificate of Martin V, in 1417, and
continues down to the present day. Some types professing to
commemorate the acts of earlier popes, e.g. the Jubilee of
Boniface VIII, are reconstructions (i.e. fabrications) of later
date. Nearly all the most noteworthy actions of each pontificate
for the last five hundred years have been commemorated by medals
in this manner, and some of the most famous artists such as
Benvenuto Cellini, Carsdosso, and others have been employed in
designing them, The wonderful family of the Hamerani, who from
1605 down to about 1807 acted as papal medallists and supplied
the greater proportion of that vast series, deserve to be
specially mentioned for the uniform excellence of their work.
Other semi-devotional medals are those which have been struck by
important religious association, as for example by the Knights
of Malta, by certain abbeys in commemoration of their abbots, or
in connection with particular orders of knighthood. On some of
these series of medals useful monographs have been written, as
for example the work ofCanon H. C. Schembri, on "The Coins and
Medals of the Knights Of Malta", (London, 1908). It has been
said above that Agnus Deis seem to have been blessed by the
popes With more or less solemnity from an early period, and
similar forms of benediction were used in connexion with the
Golden Rose, the Sword and Cap, and other objects given by the
popes as presents. In the sixteenth century this practice was
greatly developed. The custom grew up not only of bringing
objects which had touched certain relies or shrines to the pope
to be blessed, but also of the pontiff blessing, rosaries,
"grains" medals, enriching them with indulgences and sending
them, through his privileged missionaries or envoys, to be
distributed to Catholics in England. On these occasions a paper
of instructions was often drawn up defining exactly the nature
of these indulgences and the conditions on which they could be
gained. Several papers of this kind -- one in favour of Mary
Queen of Scots (1576) and others for English Catholics north of
the Alps -- have been preserved, emanating from Gregory XIII.
One is printed by Knox in the "Douay Diaries", P. 367: The
Apostolic Indulgences attached to medals, rosaries and similar
objects by all priests duly authorized, are analogous to these.
They are imparted by making a simple sign of the cross, but for
certain other objects, e.g. the medal of St. Benedict, more
special faculties are required, and an elaborate form of
benediction is provided. Quite recently [1911] Pius X has
sanctioned the use of a blessed medal to be worn in place of the
brown and other scapulars. The concession was originally made
for the benefit of the native Christians in the missions of the
Congo, but the Holy Father has expressed his readiness to grant
to other priests who apply, the faculty of blessing medals which
may be worn in place of the scapular (see "Le Canoniste
Contemporain", Feb., 1910, p. 115).
Almost the only attempt at a systematic classification of
devotional medals In general seems to have been made by KUNCZE
Systematik der Weihnsfingen (Raab, 1885), but the work is
neither scholarly nor scientific. Much more satisfactory in
every way, so far as regards the limited ground covered, are the
researches Of PACHINGER, who has published a valuable series of
studies on the Wallfahrts-Bruderschafts -- und GnadenMedaillen
of various districts. These are concerned with Bavaria (1904),
Duchy of Austria 1904), Salzburg (1908), and the Tyrol (1909),
with some other more general articles. Other miscellaneous works
are Corbierre, Numismaitique Benedictine. (Rome, s.d.); Idem,
Numismatique et Iconographie mariale (Rome, s.d.); Blanchet,
Nouveau Manuel de Numismatique (Paris, 1890); a series of
articles by Rouyer (especially in 1896-97) and by De Witte
(especially 1905-1910) in the Revue Belge de Numismatique;
Migne, Encyclopedie, Series II, XXXII, Numismatique (Paris,
1850) -- Merzbacher, katalog der Bayrischem Wallfahrts-Koster --
und Kirchon-Medaillen; (Munich, 1895): VON HOHENVEST. Weihmunzen
fur Samssler (Gras 1893; this is a slender pamphlet on the
classification religious medals -SCHRATZ, Die Denk und
Weihmunzen der eheden h. Wolfgang (Brunn, 1890); Beirlein,
Munzen der Bayerischen Kloster &c. (Munich, 1857-1879).
Upon early Christian medals, see De Rossi's various articles in
Upon early Christian medals, see De Rossi's various articles in
Bullettino di Archeologicia Cristiana, especially in 1869, 1871,
and 1891; Lecleroq in Dictionnaire d'archeologie chre tienne, a.
v. Amulettes; Babington in Dict. of Christ. Antiq. a.v. Money;
and Heuser in the Realencyclopadie f. christ. Altertums s.v.
Modaillen and various articles in the Roemische Quartalschrift
particularly 1889 On the papal medals see particularly Bonanni
Numismata Pontificum Romanorum (2 vols., Rome, 1699); Venuti
Ntimismata Pontificum Romanorum praestantiora (Rome, 1744).
Other works dealing with the general history of Medals in modern
times, but which also have many notices to the students of
religious medals, are Forrer, Biographical Dictionary of
Medalists (London 1904-1910); DOMANIG, Die deutsche Medaalle in
Kunst und Kulturhistorischer Hinsicht Vienna, 1907), a work
magnificently illustrated; Heiss, Les Medailleurs do la
Renaissance (8 vols., Paris, 1881-1892), also finely
illustrated; Rondot, Los Medailleurs et Graveurs de Monnaies en
France (Paris, 1904), with admirable illustrations. Several
other works have been mentioned in the course of the article.
HERBERT THURSTON
Miraculous Medal
Miraculous Medal
The devotion commonly known as that of the Miraculous Medal owes
its origin to Zoe Labore, a member of the Daughters of Charity
of St. Vincent de Paul, known in religion as Sister Catherine [
Note: She was subsequently canonized], to whom the Blessed
Virgin Mary appeared three separate times in the year 1830, at
the mother-house of the community at Paris. The first of these
apparitions occurred 18 July, the second 27 November, and the
third a short time later. On the second occasion, Sister
Catherine records that the Blessed Virgin appeared as if
standing on a globe, and bearing a globe in her hands. As if
from rings set with precious stones dazzling rays of light were
emitted from her fingers. These, she said, were symbols of the
graces which would be bestowed on all who asked for them. Sister
Catherine adds that around the figure appeared an oval frame
bearing in golden letters the words "O Mary, conceived without
sin, pray for us who have recourse to thee"; on the back
appeared the letter M, surmounted by a cross, with a crossbar
beneath it, and under all the Sacred Hearts of Jesus and Mary,
the former surrounded by a crown of thorns, and the latter
pierced by a sword.
At the second and third of these visions a command was given to
have a medal struck after the model revealed, and a promise of
great graces was made to those who wear it when blessed. After
careful investigation, M. Aladel, the spiritual director of
Sister Catherine, obtained the approval of Mgr. de Quelen,
Archbishop of Paris, and on 30 June, 1832, the first medals were
struck and with their distribution the devotion spread rapidly.
One of the most remarkable facts recorded in connection with the
Miraculous Medal is the conversion of a Jew, Alphonse Ratisbonne
(q.v.) of Strasburg, who had resisted the appeals of a friend to
enter the Church. M. Ratisbonne consented, somewhat reluctantly,
to wear the medal, and being in Rome, he entered, by chance, the
church of Sant' Andrea delle Fratte and beheld in a vision the
Blessed Virgin exactly as she is represented on the medal; his
conversion speedily followed. This fact has received
ecclesiastical sanction, and is recorded in the office of the
feast of the Miraculous Medal. In 1847, M. Etienne,
superior-general of the Congregation of the Mission, obtained
from Pope Pius IX the privilege of establishing in the schools
of the Sisters of Charity a confraternity under the title of the
Immaculate Conception, with all the indulgences attached to a
similar society established for its students at Rome by the
Society of Jesus. This confraternity adopted the Miraculous
Medal as its badge, and the members, known as the Children of
Mary, wear it attached to a blue ribbon. On 23 July, 1894, Pope
Leo XIII, after a careful examination of all the facts by the
Sacred Congregation of Rites, instituted a feast, with a special
Office and Mass, of the Manifestation of the Immaculate Virgin
under the title of the Miraculous Medal, to be celebrated yearly
on 27 November by the Priests of the Congregation of the
Mission, under the rite of a double of the second class. For
ordinaries and religious communities who may ask the privilege
of celebrating the festival, its rank is to be that of a double
major feast. A further decree, dated 7 September, 1894, permits
any priest to say the Mass proper to the feast in any chapel
attached to a house of the Sisters of Charity.
JOSEPH GLASS
St. Medardus
St. Medardus
Bishop of Noyon, b. at Salency (Oise) about 456; d. in his
episcopal city 8 June, about 545. His father, Nectardus, was of
Frankish origin, while his mother, named Protagia, was
Gallo-Roman. It is believed that St. Gildardus, Bishop of Rouen,
was his brother. His youth was entirely consecrated to the
practise of Christian virtues and to the study of sacred and
profane letters. He often accompanied his father on business to
Vermand and to Tournai, and frequented the schools, carefully
avoiding all worldly dissipation. His exemplary piety and his
knowledge, considerable for that time, decided the Bishop of
Vermand (d. 530) to confer on him Holy Orders, and caused him to
be chosen as his successor. Forced, in spite of his objections,
to accept this heavy charge, he devoted himself zealously to his
new duties, and to accomplish them in greater security, since
Vermand and the northern part of France in general were then
generally troubled by wars and exposed to the incursions of the
barbarians, he removed his episcopal see in 531 from Vermand, a
little city without defence, to Noyon, the strongest place in
that region. The year following, St. Eleutherius, Bishop of
Tournai, having died, St. Medardus was invited to assume the
direction of that diocese also. He refused at first, but being
urged by Clotaire himself he at last accepted. This union of the
two dioceses lasted until 1146, when they were again separated.
Clotaire, who had paid him a last visit at Noyon, had his body
transferred to the royal manor of Crouy at the gates of the city
of Soissons. Over the tomb of St. Medardus was erected the
celebrated Benedictine abbey which bears his name. St. Medardus
was one of the most honoured bishops of his time, his memory has
always been popularly venerated in the north of France, and he
soon became the hero of numerous legends. The Church celebrates
his feast on 8 June.
Baronius, Ann. (1957), 527, 80; 564, 31-4; Becu, Dissert. sur
quelques dates et quelques faits contestes de la vie de St.
Medard in Com. Arch. de Noyon, compt. rend. et mem., II (1867),
307-20; Chiffletius in Acta SS., June, II, 95-105; Corblet,
Notice historique sur le culte de St. Medard in Bull. de la Soc.
des ant. de Picardie (Amiens, 1856); Corblet, Hagiogr. du
diocese d'Amiens, IV (1874), 524-31; Guenebault in Rev.
archeol., XIII (Paris, 1857), 557-62; Lefebure, Saint Medard
(Paris, 1864); Maitre, Le culte de S. Medard dans le diocese de
Nantes in Ann. de Bretagne (1900), XV, 292-8; Surius, De vit.
SS., III (Venice, 1551), 177-181.
LEON CLUGNET
Medea
Medea
A titular see of Thrace, suffragan of Heraclea. This name and
the modern name (Midieh) are derived from the ancient
Salmydessos or Alydessos, Herodotus (IV, 93) says that the
inhabitants yielded to Darius after some resistance; Xenophon
and his companions in arms subjugated it with much difficulty
(Anab., VII, 5, 12). The city is also mentioned by Sophocles
(Antig., 969) by AEschylus (Prom. 726), who places it wrongly in
Asia, Diodorus Siculus (XIV 37), Strabo (VII, vi, 1; XII, iii,
3; I, iii, 4, 7), Ptolemy (VII, xi, etc.), who all agree in
locating its harbour on the Black Sea and very much exposed to
the winds; moreover, the shore was sandy and unfavourable for
navigation. Theophanes (Chronogr., an. m. 6255) mentions it
under the name Medeia in the year 763. The Emperor Joannes
Cantacuzenus, having taken it in 1352, was almost killed there
by the Turks (Histor., IV, 10); it is also frequently mentioned
in official acts (Miklosich and Muller), "Acta patriarchatus
Constantinopolitan", Vienna, II, 600). Medea is mentioned as a
suffragan of Heraclea towards 900 in the "Notitia" of Leo the
Wise (Gelzer, "Ungedruckte . . . Texte der Notitae
episcopatuum", 552); it is mentioned in the same way in the
"Notitia" of Manuel Comnenus about 1170 and of Michael VIII
about 1270 (Parthey, "Hieroclis Syneedemus", 104, 204). Shortly
after, under Andronicus II, Medea was made an autocephalous
archbishopric, and towards 1330 a metropolitan see (Gelzer, op.
cit., 601). In 1627 the metropolitan sees of Medea and Sozopolis
were united, to be again separated in 1715. A little later Medea
was united with Bizya, at least among the Orthodox Greeks, and
it is so still. Le Quein (Oriens christianus, I, 1143-1146)
gives the names of five Greek metropolitans, and Eubel
(Hierarchia catholics medii aevi, I, 355) mentions two Latin
titularies of the fourteenth century. To-day Medea or Midieh is
a part of the sanjak of Kirk-Kelissi in the vilayet of
Adrianople; there are two thousand Greeks and some Turks.
PTOLEMY, Geographiia s. v. Sallmydessos, ed. MULLER, I, 475;
SMITH, Dictionary of Greek and Roman Geography, II, s. v.
Salmydessus.
S. VAILHE
Medellin
Medellin
(MEDELLENSIS).
Archdiocese in the Republic of Colombia, Metropolitan of
Antioquia and Manizales, in the Departments of Medellin,
Antioquia, and Manizales. Prior to 1908, when a new civil
territorial division was adopted, the limits of the archdiocese
were conterminous with the former Department of Antioquia (from
native words meaning the "hill or mountain of gold") which lay
in the basins of the Magdalena, Cauca, and Atrato rivers, had an
area of over 22,000 square miles, and was divided into ten civil
provinces, Aures (capital, Sonson), Centro (cap., Medellin),
Fredonia (cap., Fredonia), Nordeste (cap., Sta Rosa de Osos),
Norte (cap., Yarumal), Occidente (cap. Antioquia), Oriente
(cap., Maranilla), Sopetran (cap., Sopetran), Sur (cap.,
Manizales), Uraba (cap., Frontino). The territory of the Diocese
is comprised in the Andes region; means of communication are
poor, owing to the mountainous nature of the country; a railway,
however, is being built from Puerto Berrio to Medellin. The
Catholic religion is universally professed, but the exercise of
all cults not contrary to Christian morality is permitted. The
language is Spanish, and the inhabitants are descendants of the
Spanish conquistadores, of the mestizos and negroes. There is no
race antagonism, chiefly because of the influence and teaching
of the Catholic religion. The Indians of the Cauca valley were
originally cannibals.
Education is gratuitous and as far as possible compulsory; there
are 400 primary schools with 35,000 pupils, besides many schools
conducted by religious. During the civil disturbances of the
past, many of the monasteries were confiscated, and are still
used as public buildings; but the relations between Church and
State were amicably settled by the Concordat of 1887.
Previous to 1804, the region was within the jurisdiction of the
Metropolitan of Bogota. On 31 August, 1804, the See of Antioquia
was erected, and on 4 February, 1868, the title of the diocese
was removed from Antioquia to the growing town of Medellin. On
29 Jan., 1873, the See of Antioquia (ANTIOQUIENSIS) was
re-established, and on 11 April, 1900, a portion of the Diocese
of Medellin went to constitute the newly erected See of
Manizales (MANIZALENSIS). As the civil districts are now
constituted, the Department of Antioquia embraces an area of
11,517 square miles with a population of 160,000; that of
Medellin an area of 12,137 with a population of 275,000; that of
Manizales an area of 4439 with a population of 242,000 (The
Statesman's Year-Book, 1910). There are about 5000 savage
Indians scattered in these regions.
MEDELLIN on the River Porce, 147 miles from Bogota, and 4600
feet above sea-level, is the capital of the Department of
Medellin. In 1910 it had a population of 60,000. It was named in
1575 after the Count of Medellin in Spain, but did not begin to
prosper until the gold and silver mines were discovered in the
neighbourhood early in the nineteenth century. It has 7
churches, 2 chapels, and a pro-cathedral; a new cathedral is
being constructed in the Plaza de Bolivar. Among important
institutions in the town are a seminary, a university, the
College of St. Ignatius, under the Jesuits (founded by Father
Friere in the eighteenth century), and the College of St.
Joseph, under the Christian Brothers. The Presentation Nuns
conduct schools for girls; the Sisters of Charity have charge of
a hospital; and the Discalced Carmelites have a convent. Among
the periodicals published in Medellin are "Registro Official",
"Cronica Judicial", "El Preceptor", "El Elector", and "La
Consigna".
The See of Medellin was raised to metropolitan rank on 24 Feb.,
1902. The archdiocese has 363,710 inhabitants, 110 priests, 15
regulars, 75 churches and chapels, 141 Catholic schools, in
which 16,035 pupils are being educated. The present archbishop
is Mgr. Em. Jose de Cayzedo y Cuero, born in Bogota, 16 Nov.,
1850; chosen Bishop of Pasto, 11 Feb., 1892; transferred to
Popayan, 2 Dec., 1895; made archbishop 14 Dec., 1901; and
transferred to Medellin 14 Dec., 1905, to succeed Mgr. Pardo
Vergara, the first Archbishop of Medellin.
ANTIOQUIA on the Cauca was founded by Jorge Robledo in 1542;
until 1826 it was the capital of the Department of Antioquia.
Its population is estimated at 10,077. In 1720 a Jesuit college
was established at Antioquia under the auspices of Bishop Gomez
Friar, of Popayan, and on 5 Feb., 1727, a royal charter was
granted to the college, and the fathers were given charge of the
church of St. Barbara. A few years later they opened a second
college at Buga. Among the more important buildings of the city
are the cathedral, the bishop's house, the Jesuit college, and a
hospital. On account of malaria the seminary has been removed
from Antioquia to San Pedro.
The diocese has a population of 211,315; 75 priests; 80 churches
and chapels. The present bishop is Mgr. Em. Ant. Lopez de Mesa,
born at Rio Negro in the Diocese of Medellin, 22 March, 1846,
and succeeded Mgr. Rueda as Bishop of Antioquia, 2 June, 1902.
MANIZALES is about 100 miles from Bogota, and 7000 feet above
sea-level. Founded in 1848 it has developed rapidly owing to the
gold mining operations in the neighbourhood; population in 1905,
20,000. The town suffered severely from earthquakes in 1875 and
1878.
The Diocese of Manizales was created 11 April, 1900, from
territory formerly belonging to the archdioceses of Popayan and
Medellin. The cathedral is dedicated to the Blessed Virgin. The
present and first bishop is Mgr. Gregory Hoyos, born at Vahos, 1
Dec; 1849; appointed 11 May, 1901.
PETRE, The Republic of Colombia (London, 1906); CASSANI,
Historia de la Compania de Jesus; BORDA, Compendio de Historia
de Colombia (Bogota, 1890); HOLTON, Twenty Months in the Andes
(New York); NUNEZ, La Republique de Colombie (Brussels, 1883);
Annuaire Pontifical (1910).
J.C. GREY
Media and Medes
Media and Medes
( Media, Medoi).
An ancient country of Asia and the inhabitants thereof. The
Hebrew and Assyrian form of the word Media is mdy (Madai) which
corresponds to the Mada by which the land is designated in the
earliest Persian cuneiform texts. The origin and significance of
the word are unknown. In Gen., x, 2, Madai is mentioned among
the sons of Japheth, between Magog (probably the Gimirrhi and
the Lydians) and Javan, i.e. the Ionians. In IV Kings, xvii, 6
(cf. xviii, 11) we read that Salmanasar, King of the Assyrians
"took Samaria, and carried Israel away to Assyria; and he placed
them in Hala and Habor by the river of Gozan, in the cities of
the Medes". Reference is made to the Medes in Jer., xiii, 17
(cf. xxi, 2) as enemies and future destroyers of Babylon, and
again in chapter xxv, verse 25, the "kings of the Medes" are
mentioned in a similar connection. The only reference to the
Medes in the New Testament is in Acts, ii, 9, where they are
mentioned between the Parthians and the Elamites.
The earliest information concerning the territory occupied by
the Medes, and later in part by the Persians, is derived from
the Babylonian and Assyrian texts. In these it is called Anshan,
and comprised probably a vast region bounded on the north-west
by Armenia, on the north by the Caspian Sea, on the east by the
great desert, and on the south by Elam. It included much more
than the territory originally known as Persia, which comprised
the south-eastern portion of Anshan, and extended to Carmania on
the east, and southward to the Persian Gulf. Later, however,
when the Persian supremacy eclipsed that of the Medes, the name
of Persia was extended to the whole Median territory.
Ethnological authorities are agreed that the heterogeneous
peoples who under the general name of Medes occupied this vast
region in historic times, were not the original inhabitants.
They were the successors of a prehistoric population as in the
case of the historic empires of Egypt and Assyria; and likewise,
little or nothing is known of the origin or racial ties of these
earlier inhabitants. If the Medes who appear at the dawn of
history had a written literature, which is hardly probable, no
fragments of it have been preserved, and consequently nothing is
directly known concerning their language. Judging, however, from
the proper names that have come down to us, there is reason to
infer that it differed only dialectically from the Old Persian.
They would thus be of Aryan stock, and the Median empire seems
to be the result of the earliest attempt on the part of the
Aryans to found a great conquering monarchy.
The first recorded mention of the people whom the Greeks called
Medes occurs in the cuneiform inscription of Shalmaneser II,
King of Assyria, who claims to have vanquished the Madai in his
twenty-fourth campaign, about 836 b.c. Whatever may have been
the extent of this conquest, it was by no means permanent, for
the records of the succeeding reigns down to that of
Asshurbanipal (668-625), who vainly strove to hold them in
check, constantly refers to the "dangerous Medes" (so they are
called in the inscriptions of Tiglath-Pileser IV, 747-727), in
terms which show that their aggressive hostility had become a
grave and ever-increasing menace to the power of the Assyrians.
During that period the power of Anshan was gradually
strengthened by the accession and assimilation of new peoples of
Aryan stock, who established themselves in the territory once
held by the Assyrians east of the Tigris. Thus after the year
640 b.c. the names of the native rulers of Elam disappear from
the inscriptions and in their place we find reference to the
kings of Anshan. The capital of the kingdom was Ecbatana (the
Agamatanu of the Babylonian inscriptions) the building of which
is attributed by the author of the Book of Judith (i, 1) to
"Arphaxad king of the Medes." Assuming that it is the city
called Amadana in an inscription of Tiglath Pileser I, its
origin would go back to the twelfth century b.c. At variance
with this, however, is the Greek tradition represented by
Herodotus, who asciribes the origin of Ecbatana to Deiokes (the
Daiukku of the Assyrian inscriptions, about 710 b.c.), who is
described as the first great ruler of the Median empire. The
"building of the city" is, of course, a rather elastic
expression which may well have been used to designate the
activities of monarchs who enlarged or fortified the already
existing stronghold; and it is scarcely necessary to recall that
most of these ancient records, though containing elements of
truth, are to a certain extent artificial. At all events, it is
with the reign of Deiokes that the Median empire emerges into
the full light of history, and henceforward the Greek sources
serve to check or corroborate the information derived from the
native monuments.
According to the somewhat questionable account of Herodotus,
Deiokes reigned from 700 to 647 b.c. and was succeeded by
Phraortes (646-625), but of the latter no mention is made in the
inscriptions thus far discovered. His successor Cyaxares
(624-585), after breaking the Scythian power, formed an alliance
with the Babylonians, who were endeavouring to regain their long
lost domination over Assyria. In league with Nabopolassar, King
of Babylon, he captured and destroyed Ninive (606 b.c.) and
conquered all the northern portion of Mesopotamia. Enriched by
the spoils of the great Assyrian capital, Cyaxares pushed his
conquering armies westward, and soon the dominion of the Medes
extended from the confines of Elam to the river Halys in Asia
Minor. Astyages (584-550 b.c.), the son and successor of
Cyaxares, failed to maintain the friendly relations with
Babylon, and when Nabonidus succeeded to the throne of the
latter kingdom, the Medes and Babylonians were at war.
In the meantime a great internal movement was preparing the way
for a change in the destinies of the empire. It was due to the
rising influence of another branch of the Aryan race, and in
history it is generally known as the transition from the Median
to the Persian rule. At this distance both terms are rather
vague and indefinite, but there is no doubt as to the advent of
a new dynasty, of which by far the most conspicuous ruler is
Cyrus, who first appears as King of Anshan, and who is later
mentioned as King of Persia. Doubtless in the earlier part of
his reign he was but a vassal king dependent on the Median
monarch, but in 549 b.c. he vanquished Astyages and made himself
master of the vast empire then comprising the kingdoms of
Anshan, Persia, and Media. He is known to Oriental history as a
great and brilliant conqueror, and his fame in this respect is
confirmed by the more or less fantastic legends associated with
his name by the Greek and Roman writers. His power soon became a
menace to all western Asia, and in order to withstand it a
coalition was formed into which entered Nabonidus, King of
Babylonia, Amasis, King of Egypt, and Croesus, King of Lydia.
But even this formidable alliance was unable to check the
progress of Cyrus who, after having reduced to subjection the
whole of the Median empire, led his forces into Asia Minor.
Croesus was defeated and taken prisoner in 546, and within a
year the entire peninsula of Asia Minor was divided into
satrapies, and annexed to the new Persian empire. The west being
fully subdued, Cyrus led his victorious armies against
Babylonia. Belshazzar, the son of the still reigning Nabonidus,
was sent as general in chief to defend the country, but he was
defeated at Opis. After this disaster the invading forces met
with little or no resistance, and Cyrus entered Babylon, where
he was received as a deliverer, in 539 b.c. The following year
he issued the famous decree permitting the Hebrew captives to
return to Palestine and rebuild the temple (I Esd., i). It is
interesting to note in this connexion that he is often alluded
to in Isaias (xl-xlviii, passim), where according to the obvious
literal meaning he is spoken of as the Lord's anointed. With the
accession of the Achaemenian dynasty the history of Media
becomes absorbed into that of Persia (q. v.), which will be
treated in a separate article.
Beurlier in Vigouroux, Dictionnaire de la Bible, s. v. Medie;
Rogers in The New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia, s. v. Medo-Persia;
Jackson, Persia Past and Present (New York, 1906); Sayce in
Hastings, A Dictionary of the Bible, s. v. Medes.
James F. Driscoll
Mediator (Christ As Mediator)
Mediator (Christ as Mediator)
The subject will be treated under the following heads:
(1) Definition of the word mediator;
(2) Christ the Mediator;
(3) Christ's qualifications;
(4) Performance;
(5) Results.
(1) Mediator defined
A mediator is one who brings estranged parties to an amicable
agreement. In New Testament theology the term invariably implies
that the estranged beings are God and man, and it is
appropriated to Christ, the One Mediator. When special friends
of God -- angels, saints, holy men -- plead our cause before
God, they mediate "with Christ"; their mediation is only
secondary and is better called intercession (q.v.). Moses,
howover, is the proper mediator of the Old Testament (Gal, iii,
19-20).
(2) Christ the Mediator
St. Paul writes to Timothy (I Tim., ii, 3-6) . . . "God our
Saviour, Who will have all men to be saved, and to come to the
knowledge of the truth. For there is one God, and one mediator
of God and men, the man Christ Jesus: Who gave himself a
redemption for all, a testimony in due times." The object of the
mediatorship is here pointed out as the salvation of mankind,
and the imparting of truth about God. The mediator is named:
Christ Jesus; His qualification for the office is implied in His
being described as man, and the performance of it is ascribed to
His redeeming sacrifice and His testifying to the truth. All
this originates in the Divine Will of "God our Saviour, Who will
have all men to be saved". Christ's mediatorship, therefore,
occupies the central position in the economy of salvation: all
human souls are both for time and eternity dependent on Christ
Jesus for their whole supernatural life. "Who [God the Father]
hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath
translated us into the kingdom of the Son of his love, In whom
we have redemption through his blood, the remission of sins; Who
is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every
creature . . . all things were created by him and in him. And he
is before all and by him all things consist. And he is the head
of the body, the church, who is the beginning the firstborn from
the dead; that in all things he may hold the primacy: Because in
him, it hath well pleased the Father, that all fulness should
dwell; And through him to reconcile all things unto himself,
making peace through the blood of his cross, both as to the
things that are on earth, and the things that are in heaven".
(Col., i, 13-20)
(3) Qualifications
The perfection of a mediator is measured by his influence with
the parties he has to reconcile, and this power flows from his
connection with both: the highest possible perfection would be
reached if the mediator were substantially one with both
parties. A mother, for instance, is the best mediator between
her husband and her son. But the matrimonial union of "two in
one flesh", and the union of mother and child are inferior in
perfection to the hypostatic union of the Son of God with human
nature. Husband, mother, son, are three persons; Jesus Christ,
God and man, is only one person, identical with God, identical
with man. Moreover, the hypostatic union makes Him the Head of
mankind and, therefore, its natural representative. By His human
origin Christ is a member of the human family, a partaker of our
flesh and blood (Heb., ii, 11-15); by reason of His Divine
Personality, He is "the image and likeness of God" to a degree
unapproached by either man or angel. The Incarnation
establishing between the First-born and His brethren a real
kinship or affinity, Christ becomes the Head of the human
family, and the human family acquires a claim to participate in
the supernatural privileges of their Head, "Because we are
members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones." (Eph., v,
30.). Such was the expressed will of God: "But when the fulness
of the time was come, God sent his Son, made of a woman . . .
that we might receive the adoption of sons." (Gal., iv, 4-5;
also Rom., viii, 29.) The man Christ Jesus, therefore, who was
designed by God to mediate between Him and mankind, and whose
mediatorship was not accidental and delegated, but inherent in
His very being, was endowed with all the attributes are required
in a perfect mediator.
Christ's function as mediator necessarily proceeds from His
human nature as principium quo operandi; yet it obtains its
mediating efficacy from the Divine nature, i.e. from the dignity
of an acting person. Its first object, as commonly stated, is
the remission of sin and the granting of grace, whereby the
friendship between God and man is restored. This object is
attained by the worship of infinite value which is offered to
God by and through Christ. Christ, however, is mediator on the
side of God as well as on the side of man: He reveals to man
Divine truth and Divine commands; He distributes the Divine
gifts of grace and rules the world. St. Paul sums up this
two-sided mediation in the words: ". . . consider the apostle
and high priest of our confession, Jesus" (Heb. iii, I); Jesus
is the Apostle sent by God to us, the high priest leading us to
God.
(4) Performance
How do we benefit by Christ's mediation? Christ is more than an
enlightening teacher and a bright example of holiness; He
destroys sin and restores grace. Our salvation is not due
exclusively to the Mediator's intercession for us in His heaven;
Christ administers in heaven the fruits of His work on earth
(Heb., vii, 25). Scripture compels us to regard the work of the
Mediator as an efficient cause of our salvation: His merits and
satisfaction, as being those of our representative, have
obtained for us salvation from God. The oldest expression of the
dogma in the Church formularies is in the Nicene Creed:
"crucified also for us". "Vicarious satisfaction", a term now in
vogue, is not found expressly in the Church formularies, and us
not an adequate expression of Christ's mediation. For His
mediation partly replaces, partly renders possible and
efficacious the saving work of man himself, on the other hand,
it is a condition of, and it merits, the saving work of God. It
begins with obtaining the goodwill of God towards man, and
appeasing the offended God by interceding for man. This
intercession, however, differs from a mere asking in this, that
Christ's work has merited what is asked for: salvatlon is its
rightful equivalent. Further : to effect man's salvation from
sin, the Saviour had to take upon Himself the sins of mankind
and make satisfaction for them to God. But though His atonement
gives God more honour than sin gives dishonour, it is but a step
towards the most essential part of Christ's saving work - the
friendship of God which it merits for man. Taken together, the
expiation of sin and the meriting of Divine friendship are the
end of a real sacrifice, i.e. of "an action performed in order
to give God the honour due to Him alone, and so to gain the
Divine favour" (Summa Theologica III:48:3). Peculiar to Christ's
sacrifice are the infinite value of Victim, which give the
sacrifice an infinite value of expiation and as merit. Moreover,
it consists of suffering voluntarily accepted. The sinner
deserves death, having forfeited the end for which he was
created; and hence Christ accepted death as the chief feature of
His atoning sacrifice.
(5) Results
Christ's saving work did not at once blot out every individual
sin and transform every sinner into a saint, it only procured
the means thereto. Personal sanctification is effected the
special acts, partly Divine, partly human; it is secured by
loving God, and man as the Saviour did. Christianus alter
Christus: every Christian is another Christ, a son of God, an
heir to the eternal Kingdom. Finally, in the fulness of time all
things that are in heaven and on earth shall be re-established,
restored, in God through Christ (Eph., i, 9-10). The meaning of
the promise is that the whole of creation, bound up together and
perfected in christ as its Head, shall be led back in the most
perfect manner to God, from whom sin had partly led it away.
Christ is the Crown the Centre, and the Fountain of a new and
higher order of things: "for all are yours; And you are
Christ's; and Christ is God's." (I Cor, iii, 22-23).
J. WILHELM
Hieronymus Medices
Hieronymus Medices
(DE MEDICIS)
Illustrious as a scholastic of acumen and penetration, b. at
Camerino in Umbria, 1569, whence the surname de Medicis a
Camerino. He was clothed with the Dominican habit at Ancona. He
first distinguished himself as professor of philosophy and
theology in various houses of the Province of Lombardy, whence
he was advanced to a professorship in the more important
theological school at Bologna. He was approved by the general
chapter of his Order held at Paris, 1611, and raised to the
mastership and doctorate. He was then performing the duties of
general censor for the tribunal of the Inquisition established
at Mantua, for which reason he is said eventually to have
secured the transfer of his affiliation to the convent of that
place (1618). His laborious and fruitful career closed in 1622.
It had been marked by a studious application to the doctrines of
St. Thomas. Just as the Paris chapter was acknowledging his
intellectual ability, he completed the first part of the
invaluable "Summae theologiae S. Thomae Aquinatis doctoris
angelici formalis explicatio". In this work he puts into
syllogistic form the whole Summa. Aiming primarily at the
enlightenment of beginners, he contributes notably to the
instruction of others more advanced. The first part was not
published until the first section of the second part was ready
(Venice), 1614. Three years later followed the second section,
but it was not until 1622 that the third part appeared at Salo,
instead of Venice. The supplement had preceded the third part by
a year (Venice, 1621); it was not published at Mantels in 1623.
Other more correct editions have followed even as late as (Vici)
1858-1862. It is to Jacobus Quetif that credit is due for having
improved the original in accuracy. He reproduced the work in
five tomes, folio (Paris), in 1657. The chief advantage to be
derived from the arrangement of St. Thomas in syllogistic form
is a quickness of grasp with an easiness of assimilation not
otherwise obtainable. In the Vici edition certain additions have
been made which, although raising the value of the work as a
manual, are outside the scope of the original. They serve as
appendices to each question and, under the caption "Utilitas pro
Ecclesia S. Dei", furnish the student with practical
applications of the original matter in view of dogmas
subsequently developed or contemporary heresy.
QUETIF-ECHARD, Scriptores O. P. (Paris, 1721), II, 425 b;
HUNTER, NOMENCLATOR (Innsbruck, 1892) I, 257 b.; MORGOTT in
Kirchenlexion (Freiburg im Br., 1893), treats more fully of the
new features of the VICI ed. of the "Explicatio".
THOMAS A K. REILLY
House of Medici
House of Medici
A Florentine family, the members of which, having acquired great
wealth as bankers, rose in a few generations to be first the
unofficial rulers of the republic of Florence and afterwards the
recognized sovereigns of Tuscany.
Cosimo the Elder. Born 1389, died 1 August, 1464, the founder of
their power and so-called "Padre della Patria", was the son of
Giovanni di Averardo de' Medici, the richest banker in Italy. He
obtained the virtual lordship of Florence in 1434 by the
overthrow and expulsion of the leaders of the oligarchical
faction of the Albizzi. While maintaining republican forms and
institutions, he held the government by banishing his opponents
and concentrating the chief magistracies in the hands of his own
adherents. His foreign policy, which became traditional with the
Medici throughout the fifteenth century until the French
invasion of 1494, aimed at establishing a balance of power
between the five chief states of the Italian peninsula, by
allying Florence with Milan and maintaining friendly relations
with Naples, to counterpoise the similar understanding existing
between Rome and Venice. He was a munificent and discerning
patron of art and letters, a thorough humanist, and through
Marsilio Ficino, the founder of the famous Neo-Platonic academy.
Sincerely devoted to religion in his latter days, he was closely
associated with St. Antoninus and with the Dominican friars of
San Marco, his favourite foundation. His son and successor,
Piero il Gottoso, the husband of Lucrezia Tornabuoni, a man of
magnanimous character but whose activities were crippled by
illness, contented himself with following in his footsteps.
Lorenzo and Giuliano. On Piero's death in 1469, his sons
Lorenzo, b. 1449, d. 8 April, 1492, and Giuliano, b. 1453, d. 26
April, 1478, succeeded to his power. The latter, a genial youth
with no particular aptitude for politics, was murdered in the
Pazzi conspiracy of 1478, leaving an illegitimate son Giulio,
who afterwards became Pope Clement VII. Among those executed for
their share in the conspiracy was the Archbishop of Pisa. A war
with Pope Sixtus IV and King Ferrante of Naples followed, in
which Florence was hard pressed, until, Lorenzo, as Machiavelli
says, "exposed his own life to restore peace to his country", by
going in person to the Neapolitan sovereign to obtain favourable
terms, in 1480. Henceforth until his death Lorenzo was
undisputed master of Florence and her dominions, and, while
continuing and developing the foreign and domestic policy of his
grandfather, he greatly extended the Medicean influence
throughout Italy. His skillful diplomacy was directed to
maintaining the peace of the peninsula, and keeping the five
chief states united in the face of the growing danger of an
invasion from beyond the Alps. Guicciardini writes of him that
it would not have been possible for Florence to have had a
better or a more pleasant tyrant, and certainly the world has
seen no more splendid a patron of artists and scholars. The
poets, Pulci and Poliziano, the philosopher and mystic, Giovanni
Pico della Mirandola, and a whole galaxy of great artists, such
as Botticelli and Ghirlandaio, shed glory over his reign.
Posterity has agreed to call Lorenzo "the Magnificent", but this
is, in part, a misunderstanding of the Italian title
"magnifico", which was given to all the members of his family,
and, indeed, during the fifteenth century, applied to most
persons of importance in Italy to whom the higher title of
"Excellence" did not pertain. Lorenzo sums up the finest culture
of the early Renaissance in his own person. Unlike many of the
humanists of his epoch, he throughly appreciated the great
Italian classics of the two preceding centuries; in his youth he
wrote a famous epistle on the